Minister of Community Services v. S.A., 2023 NSSC 147

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Minister of Community Services v. S.A. , 2023 NSSC 147 Date: 20230510 Docket: SFHCFSA No. 129219 Registry: Halifax Between: Minister of Community Services Applicant v. S.A. Respondent Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Ingersoll Heard: April 5, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Decision: May 10, 2023 Subject: Children & Family Services Act , 5 day interim hearing

Summary: The Agency sought an order placing the child with a third party subject to supervision. The Respondent sought a dismissal of the proceeding. Issues:

(1) Did the Agency meet the threshold to show there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Children & Family Services Act ?

(2) If the threshold was met are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a substantial risk to the child’s health and safety that cannot be protected adequately by an order pursuant to Subsections 39 (4) (a) (

b) or (

c) of the Children & Family Services Act ? Result: The Agency established that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Children & Family Services Act and that there is a substantial risk to the child’s health and safety that cannot be protected adequately by an order pursuant to Subsections 39 (4) (a) (

b) or (

c) of the Children & Family Services Act . THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET. SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Minister of Community Services v. S.A. , 2023 NSSC 147 Date: 20230510 Docket: SFHCFSA No. 129219 Registry: Halifax Between: Minister of Community Services Applicant v.

S.A. Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Ingersoll Heard: April 5, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Release: May 10, 2023 Counsel: KS, counsel for the Applicant SA, self-represented By the Court: [ 1 ] The Applicant, the Minister of Community Services, filed a notice of Child Protection Application on March 23, 2023.

In that Application, the Minister seeks a Child Protection Order that HA, born November, 2018, is a child in need of protective services under the Children and Family Services Act (hereafter the CFSA). [ 2 ] This is my decision in respect of the evidence and submissions received yesterday at the Interim Hearing in the matter of the Minister of Community Services and SA. Grounds for the Order [ 3 ] The Applicant seeks this Order pursuant to CFSA sections 22 (2) (b), (g), (

j) and (k). These subsections state as follows: 1. 22(2) A child is in need of protective services where (

b) there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer physical harm inflicted or caused as described in clause (a); i. [Clause (

a) states: (

a) the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by a parent or guardian of the child or caused by the failure of a parent or guardian to supervise and protect the child adequately;] (

g) there is substantial risk that the child will suffer emotional abuse and the parent or guardian does not provide, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, or fails to co-operate with the provision of, services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the abuse; (

j) the child is experiencing neglect by a parent or guardian of the child; (

k) there is substantial risk that the child will experience neglect by a parent or guardian of the child, and the parent or guardian does not provide, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, or fails to co-operate with the provision of, services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm. [ 4 ] The CFSA defines the terms emotional abuse and neglect as follows: [ 5 ] s.3(la) “emotional abuse” means acts that seriously interfere with a child’s healthy development, emotional functioning and attachment to others such as 1. rejection, 2. isolation, including depriving the child from normal social interactions, 3. deprivation of affection or cognitive stimulation, 4. inappropriate criticism, humiliation or expectations of or threats or accusations toward the child, or 5. any other similar acts. [ 6 ] s.3(p) “neglect” means the chronic and serious failure to provide to the child 1. adequate food, clothing or shelter, 2. adequate supervision, 3. affection or cognitive stimulation, or 4. any other similar failure to provide. [ 7 ] In addition to the finding that the child is a child in need of protective services the Minister seeks an order pursuant to s.39(4) (

d) of the Children and Family Services Act , that the child, HA, be placed in the care and custody of MG, with her consent, and subject to the supervision of the Applicant upon such terms and conditions as this Court may impose which terms are specified in the notice.

Child placed with a third party prior to Application being filed [ 8 ] HA has not been in his mother’s care since March 1, 2023. As of March 1, 2023, HA was initially in the care of MG, then with ES and then again with MG. Service of the notice [ 9 ] The Applicant served the Notice of Child Protection Application, the affidavit of Social Worker, EC, sworn on March 22, 2023, and file materials on SA on March 22, 2023.

The Minister filed an affidavit of service on March 23, 2023. [ 10 ] The Notice specified that the interim hearing would take place on Wednesday March 29, 2023, at 10:00 AM before a judge in Chambers at 3380 Devonshire Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Five Day hearing [ 11 ] SA attended without counsel at the initial five day hearing on March 29, 2023. [ 12 ] At that time HA was in the care of MG. MG participated in the hearing by phone. [ 13 ] SA advised that court that she was not consenting to the order sought by the Minister.

SA was firm in her position that she wanted her son returned to her. [ 14 ] Based on the affidavit of EC, a finding was made at the five day hearing that reasonable and probable grounds existed to believe that HA was a child in need of protective services and, further, that the court was satisfied that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there was a substantial risk to HA’s health and safety and that HA could not be protected by an order pursuant to clause (a), (

b) or (

c) of Section 39 (4). [ 15 ] In light of SA’s position that she was not consenting to a finding that reasonable and probable grounds existed to believe that her son was a child in need of protective services and because she wanted him returned to her as soon as possible, I set the matter over to Tuesday, April 5, 2023, for completion of the Interim Hearing. [ 16 ] SA was encouraged to secure legal counsel and was told that if she intended to put forward evidence, she had to do so via an affidavit which would have to be prepared and served on the Applicant by April 4, 2023.

Completion of the Interim Hearing [ 17 ] SA did not retain counsel and she did not file an affidavit. SA advised the court that she had reached out to Nova Scotia Legal Aid and was told that they could not likely arrange a lawyer for her in the time frame required.

SA advised that she responded to Legal Aid but had not received a call back. [ 18 ] Counsel for the Applicant advised the court that she was aware that SA had reached out to Nova Scotia Legal Aid and would consent to an adjournment to provide her time to locate and instruct counsel. [ 19 ] SA advised that she did not want to obtain counsel and wished to proceed with the Hearing even though she did not have an affidavit prepared and did not have a lawyer. [ 20 ] I asked SA to carefully consider retaining counsel and that I would grant her a further adjournment to find a lawyer and file an affidavit.

SA was adamant that she wanted to proceed with the hearing as scheduled. [ 21 ] The completion of the Interim Hearing proceeded as scheduled. [ 22 ] EC was sworn and offered some viva voce evidence to supplement her affidavit sworn on March 22, 2023. SA questioned EC. [ 23 ] As noted, SA had not submitted an affidavit. Notwithstanding that fact, I permitted SA to offer viva voce evidence to respond to the evidence in EC’s affidavit as supplemented by EC’s viva voce evidence. After SA’s viva voce evidence she was cross examined.

The parties then made submissions regarding the appropriate outcome at the Interim Hearing stage. Hearsay evidence [ 24 ] EC’s affidavit sworn on March 22, 2023, and her viva voce evidence offered on Tuesday contain hearsay from a number of sources. These sources included a former partner of SA’s, AS, MG, Dr. KY, Social Worker RB, ES, Dr. LK, Constable H of HRP, and SA’s aunt PP. Section 39(11) of the Children and Family Services Act 39

(11) For the purpose of this Section, the court may admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. [ 25 ] The CFSA permits the court at the Interim Hearing stage to admit and act on evidence which it considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. This permits the court to admit and act on hearsay evidence in an affidavit if the court is satisfied that that hearsay evidence is credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.

[ 26 ] During the Hearing, SA spoke positively about AS, MG and ES. MG and ES have both been entrusted to care for HA. EC’s evidence attributed to these women is consistent and much of it was affirmed by SA. There was no suggestion that the evidence from these women was inaccurately recorded or that they had any reason to be untruthful in their discussions with EC. I admit the evidence attributed to these women as I find it to be credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. [ 27 ] Dr. KY and Social Worker RB are persons involved in SA’s circle of care during her recent admission to the Abbie Lane department.

There was no suggestion that the evidence from these two women was inaccurately recorded or that they had any reason to be untruthful in their discussions with EC. I admit the evidence attributed to these two women as I find it to be credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. [ 28 ] I too accept the evidence attributed to Dr. LK, the individual who facilitated the virtual group therapy which SA has attended, as being credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. [ 29 ] I have evidence attributed to Constable H.

Constable H did a wellness check on SA, the information provided from Constable H is consistent with other evidence. SA admits the police attended at her home to do a wellness check. I accept Constable H’s evidence as credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. [ 30 ] Finally with respect to SA’s aunt PP I note that PP attended court with SA on March 29, 2023. PP engaged with SA and SA did not give evidence or suggest that EC did not properly record the details of her conversation with PP. I admit the evidence attributed to PP as I find it to be credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.

The evidence [ 31 ] EC’s affidavit evidence establishes at this stage of the proceeding the following: 1. SA had been diagnosed with Border Line Personality Disorder, ADHD, had a history of trauma, alcohol abuse, and a recent gambling addiction. 2. On August 22, 2022, AS contacted Child Protective Services and advised that SA had a history of self harm while HA was present and a history of severe daily drinking and that SA last drank two weeks before August 22, 2022. AS is reported to have advised that 14 to 15 months before August of 2022, SA had cut herself badly requiring 70 stitches while HA was home. 3.

On February 28, 2023, an anonymous call was received (I accept this evidence as it is consistent with other evidence received and admitted by SA). This anonymous caller said that the police had been called to do a wellness check on SA as she had posted 26 times on Facebook in the last 12 hours which the caller advised exceeded SA’s usual habit of posting every couple of days. The caller said that SA’s post confirmed that at 9:00 p.m. that night SA was at Queensland Beach with her son HA. The caller said that SA appeared manic in her social media posts. 4. The police attended at SA’s home on March 1, 2023.

Constable H reported that SA appeared scattered. The police noted that the Mental Health Mobile Crises Unit had advised the police that SA had been engaging in mental health supports and had a recent medication change. 5. SA was reported missing on March 2, 2023. She had been missing since 3:00 p.m. on March 1, 2023. SA was found on March 2, 2023, wandering in the woods near a camp in the Valley and at the time seemed confused. There was no sign of her vehicle. SA’s son had been dropped off at daycare the day she went missing. MG cared for HA that night. SA was taken to the Windsor Hospital. 6.

As of March 2, 2023, SA’s former partner AS, (who was described by SA as a counselor) gave the following information about SA: a. SA had been acting erratically in the past month, b. SA had written a suicide note in February, c. SA had driven to Cape Breton in a “deregulated’ condition and then turned around and came straight back to Halifax and stayed with AS until she calmed down. HA was staying with someone else at this time. d. SA thought the police were coming to her apartment as a result of a matter involving money she owed to someone from AA. e.

SA sent AS an email saying that she (talking about herself) was not behaving like a responsible parent. 7. AS noted that SA had posted a number of concerning posts such as “free now”, “we are safe doing what we want”, “has a family emergency going on”, her “father is dying in Moncton” and she was “selling her car for $3,000.00”. 8. HA attends the daycare in SA’s building. MG works at that daycare and lives in the building. MG said that staff noticed a change in SA’s behaviour during drop off and pick up times in the week prior to March 2, 2023. 9.

SA was transported from the Windsor Hospital to the Abbie Lane unit for assessment. SA left the unit but was found by the police and returned to the unit. She remained there until March 13, 2023. 10. On admission to the Abbie Lane SA’s treatment team described SA as being in an “Acute Manic Episode” and was “very disorganized”. 11. SA’s treatment team identified a treatment plan for SA. SA declined the medical treatment plan and left the hospital on March 13, 2023.

12. On March 13, 2023, the day SA left the Abbie Lane, she advised EC that her doctor did not recommend that she get her son back in her care. SA asked what she had to do to regain care for her son. 13. SA has had one parenting time with her son since March 1, 2023. That occurred on March 13, 2023. MG attempted to organize a meeting between SA and her son and set a date. SA canceled that meeting and asked for a meeting the next day, which she also cancelled. A recent parenting time appointment offered to SA was not accepted by SA as the visit was not long enough and would have been dysregulating for HA. 14.

On March 14, 2023, ES told EC that SA’s manic behaviour was not out of character, but ES was worried that SA was losing touch with reality and was not being honest in all of her interactions. ES said that SA could provide her son with his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing but that the inconsistency in SA’s behaviour and her propensity to make poor decisions lately makes ES worried. 15. SA’s aunt told EC that she was worried about SA’s mental health. She advised that SA had been taking medications for a few months and then stopped taking them and thinks that that is what caused SA’s manic episodes. 16.

ES attempted to arrange a parenting time visit for SA which SA refused as she felt it would be too hard on her son’s nervous system. SA advised ES that she was not going to see her son but rather was going to the beach as she was tired and mentally exhausted. [ 32 ] EC’s viva voce evidence established the following facts: 1. ES had contacted EC to advise that SA had called ES one evening asking that ES come pick up SA as SA had driven to Yarmouth where her car had broken down and SA did not know where she was. [ 33 ] SA’s viva voce evidence established the following: 1.

SA is currently prescribed cannabis but is not using it. She is not taking any other medication to treat any of her mental health issues. 2. With respect to the Yarmouth incident, SA had driven to Yarmouth where her car had run out of gas. She did not have any money on her. She left her car and started walking home. A man picked her up and drove her back to Yarmouth in an attempt to locate her car. She could not locate her car and then set out on foot again to walk home.

She says that she started walking home at 5:30 a.m. and walked for 10 and a half hours before she stopped at a church in Jordan Falls and phoned ES. She asked that ES call the police. The police attended at the church, picked SA up and drove her to a Tim Horton’s in Bridgewater. SA then walked to the Irving Station and asked to charge her phone. Once her phone was charged, she called a friend who picked her up. 3. SA’s vehicle was impounded by the police and remains in Yarmouth. She says that the police told her that the plates are illegal, but she does not understand that allegation. 4.

The day prior to becoming lost in the woods, SA phoned the police 27 times regarding threats which she had received from the AA member to whom she owed money. SA feared for HA’s safety based on the threats she received from the AA member. SA said that it was possible that she had gambled with the money the AA member had loaned her. [ 34 ] Although not evidence under oath, during her closing submission SA admitted: 1. That she had cut herself badly while intoxicated and caring for HA and had begged MA to not take her to hospital that night.

SA said that a crazy ex girlfriend had driven to the brink and was to blame for the cutting which required 52 stitches. 2. That she had written a suicide note. 3. That she has no money, no food and is behind in her rent. She may have to start selling her possessions. She no longer has a gym membership. 4. That it took her nearly two hours to shower to prepare for court yesterday. 5. That her son gets dysregulated when she gets dysregulated. The Issues: [ 35 ] The following three issues will be determined in this decision: 1.

Are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services?; 2. Is the Court satisfied that there are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a substantial risk to the child’s health and safety that cannot be protected adequately by means of an Interim Supervision Order?; and 3. If the first question is answered in the positive, what Interim Order should be granted pending completion of the Protection Hearing?

ISSUE #1 Are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services?: [ 36 ] What constitutes reasonable and probable grounds is a question of fact that depends on the circumstances of each case. An objective test must be applied and the facts must be such as would cause a reasonably careful and prudent person to believe, or have an honest or strong belief, that the child is in need of protective services. Family & Children's Services of Digby (County) v. G.(D.) , [2000] N.S.J. No. 199 , 2000 CarswellNS 96 (Fam. Ct) , Comeau C.J.

[ 37 ] Justice Lynch considered the meaning of the words “reasonable and probable grounds” in Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v AB , [2013] NSJ No 146 and noted as follows: 22 Reasonable and probable grounds have been considered many times in cases. In Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. J.R., 2010 NSSC 222 , Forgeron J., in paragraphs 23-28, reviews reasonable and probable grounds and terms such as "credible and reliable", "objective", "facts that would cause a reasonably careful and prudent person to believe". 23 In British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Community Service) v.

M.O. supra, at paragraph 68 N. Brown J. says: • o 68 Therefore, under s. 17(1)(a), the Director must hold a belief that is objectively reasonable and based on some evidence -- that is, it must be based on more than mere conjecture, suspicion, a hunch or intuition . While the test is not exactly the same I find some guidance in these considerations of "reasonable and probable grounds". (emphasis added) [ 38 ] At this stage of this protection proceeding the Court need only consider whether there are reasonable and probable ground to believe the child is in need of protective services.

As noted by Judge Levy in Family and Children’s Services of Kings County v. B (y) [2000] NSJ No., 263 : The inquiry is not whether the children are in fact in need of protective services, but only whether the evidence before the court leads one reasonably to conclude that they probably are. The decision is to be made on the basis of evidence that the courts considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. [ 39 ] I have concluded that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services.

I have considered all of the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the CFSA and the jurisprudence and reach this conclusion for the following reasons: 1. SA has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and ADHD, significant diagnoses for which she has been prescribed medications in the past but is not longer taking any of these medications. 2. SA is described by persons in her life as recently acting differently and recently making bad choices. 3. Medical personnel and lay persons have described SA’s recent behaviour as manic. 4.

SA does not demonstrate any insight into the problems which her failure to take medications could cause for her mental and emotional health. Further SA does not appear to have any insight into her recent behaviour and how that behaviour could not be in her son’s best interest. 5. SA was recently hospitalized and noted to be in a manic state but has refused all medical treatment. 6.

SA’s recent road trips (even since this proceeding commenced) (driving to Cape Breton, to the Valley and getting lost in the woods, and more recently to Yarmouth where she exited and could not later find her car and then walked for 10 and a half hours before asking for help) have demonstrated poor impulse control, a lack of ability to plan, a lack of awareness of her circumstances and a lack of organized thinking. 7. These road trips all appear to be associated with SA being dysregulated.

I have been presented with no logical reason for any of these road trips two of which have ended in SA being alone, cold and in the dark – in short in both situations she put herself at significant risk of personal harm. 8. She has made very poor choices involving or which have affected her ability to parent her son. These include taking her son who is just four years old to Queensland beach at 9:00 p.m. on a February evening and while there posting on social media about Oprah and being free. The incident when she was lost in the woods occurred while her son was at daycare.

Fortunately, a neighbour and friend works at the daycare and assumed care for her son when SA did not pick him up. 9. SA has recently been engaged in gambling and has borrowed money from persons who have threatened her and caused her to fear for her son. 10. SA recently wrote a suicide note. As the sole care giver for a child such a note is a grave concern not only for SA but also for her son. 11. SA has no insight into the aberrant nature of her recent behaviour and is resistant to medical treatment. 12.

SA’s capacity to function appears to be limited as she is not currently working, took nearly two hours to get ready for court, has no food in her house and no money. 13. SA indicated that her health is worse than when HA was in her care. The evidence does not reflect this fact. While SA was the primary and in fact only parent caring for HA she: a. Got lost in the woods. b. Drove back and forth to Cape Breton.

c. Posted on Facebook 26 times in a 12-hour span with comments that were worrisome. d. Took her 4-year-old son to a beach at 9:00 p.m. in February. e. Called the policy 27 times in one day. f. Wrote a suicide note. g. Incurred gambling debt and was threatened by the person who loaned her money which she says she possibly may have used for gambling. 14. It is not the child’s job to regulate a parent or to balance a parent. 15. In the past SA has engaged in behaviour which is completely at odds with the proper discharge of parental responsibilities.

The example SA gave of cutting herself while intoxicated and at the same time the only person home with her son shows a lack of insight into the risk her placed her son in even if he was asleep while she drank and cut herself.

A further lack of responsibility was demonstrated when she blamed that event on a crazy ex-girlfriend as opposed to taking responsibility herself for her conduct. [ 40 ] In considering the question of whether reasonable and probable grounds exist to believe that the child is in need of protective services SA says that she thinks her son is “pretty safe”. [ 41 ] In considering whether reasonable probable grounds exist to believe that the child is in need of protective services I must look at the circumstances prior to and at the time of this proceeding to determine if I have confidence that going forward the child is safe.

In considering the future I must look to the past to determine if reasonable and probable grounds exist. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted the importance of considering past conduct in GM v Children's Aid Society of Cape Breton-Victoria , [2008] NSJ No 545 when it said: In child welfare proceedings the judge must predict future behaviour based upon past events. [ 42 ] SA says that she has no problem regulating. She said that she has been hurt her whole life. That she wants someone to help her and not hurt her.

She said that she is not an animal and that she does not have any fight left in her. [ 43 ] I accept and I am empathetic with SA that her life has been difficult but today, in this proceeding, the health and wellbeing of her son is my sole and dominant priority. [ 44 ] With respect, the evidence establishes that SA is currently having great difficulty caring for and regulating herself. [ 45 ] Based on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that SA can safely care for her son. [ 46 ] I conclude that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services.

The evidence is not at all conjecture, suspicion or a mere hunch. I find the evidence of SA’s behaviour to be credible and reliable and that it would lead a reasonably careful and prudent person to believe that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services. [ 47 ] The test at this stage is whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services. To use Judge Levy’s expression in Kings County v. B supra , I find that the child probably is in need of protective services.

ISSUE #2 Is the Court satisfied that there are there reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a substantial risk to the child’s health and safety that cannot be protected adequately by means of an Interim Supervision Order?; [ 48 ] Having found that the there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services I must now consider the interim order that should be made as a result of that finding. [ 49 ] The options are to either place the child with his mother subject to a supervision order or place him with a third party with that third party’s consent subject to the supervision of the Minister.

Section 39 (7) of the CFSA stipulates that having made this decision as I have, I can only opt to place the child with a third party and not his mother if I am satisfied as follows: 39(7) The court shall not make an order pursuant to clause (

d) or (

e) of subsection (4) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a substantial risk to the child’s health or safety and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order pursuant to clause (a), (

b) or (c). [ 50 ] Section 22(1) of the CFSA defines the words “substantial risk” as follows: In this Section, “substantial risk” means a real chance of danger that is apparent on the evidence. [ 51 ] Justice Forgeron in Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. AM [2010 ] NSJ 339 considered the analysis that must be undertaken in considering whether a substantial risk finding can be made and noted as follows: 35 …….. In B. (M.J.) v.

Family and Children's Services of Kings County 2008 NSCA 64 (C.A.) para. 77 , the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that "substantial risk" means a real chance of future abuse, and not that the future abuse will actually occur. 36 In Family and Children's Services of Lunenburg County v. S. (W.L.) [1999] N.S.J. No. 326 (Fam. Ct.), para. 21 , Daley J. stated that speculation, hunches, or possibilities do not meet the statutory definition. 37 "Danger" in the context of an interim proceeding was held, by Daley J., to mean danger from the physical harm that may occur

before the next hearing, or from psychological harm that will, in the short term, effect the child's health or safety: Children's AidSociety of Halifax v. M. (P.) (1995), (NS FC), 138 N.S.R. (2d) 186 (Fam. Ct.) para. 32. [52] I am satisfied that there is a substantial risk of danger to the child in this case. SA’s untreated manic behaviour has put her atrisk and placed her son in unacceptable situations. SA demonstrates no insight into her medical condition or her behaviour, or how hermental health and her behaviour could harm her son and place him in an unacceptable and unsafe situation.

ISSUE #3 What Interim Order should be granted pending completion of the Protection Hearing? [53] I find that the child shall be placed with MG subject to her consent on the terms set out in the Notice. [54] We will now set the date for the Pre-Trial to the Protection Hearing. __________________________________ Daniel W. Ingersoll, J.