Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society v. D.S., 2015 ONCJ 793

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: This is a case under

Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act , which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows: 45.—

(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — The court may make an order, . . . (

c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing, where the court is of the opinion that . . . publication of the report, . . ., would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.

(8) Prohibition: identifying child. — No person shall publish or make public 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, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Idem: order re adult. — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part. . . . 85.—

(3) Idem. — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(

c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2015·10·16 COURT FILE No.: Belleville, Ontario 455/09 CITATION: Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society v. D.S. , 2015 ONCJ 793 BETWEEN: Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, Applicant, — AND — Ms. D.S. (Mother) and Mr. M.B. (Father of E.), Respondents. Before Justice W. Malcolm

Heard on May 1,4,5,6 and 7, June 10 and 12 th , July 8, 9, 15, and 17, August 12, 13, 14, 17 and 27, 2015 Reasons for Judgment released on October 16, 2015 Linda Fagbenro .................................................................. counsel for the applicant Society Elton Brant counsel for the Mother and Joyce Melbourne counsel for the Father ...................... counsel for the respondent(

s) Sharon A. Leitch ....................................... counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child M.S. Malcolm, J.: Overview and parties [ 1 ] This is a child protection application commenced in December 2013 by the Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, hereinafter called the “Society”, requesting that the children in question be placed in their care for a period of six months.

The Application was amended in May 2014 to a request that the children be made wards of the Crown. [ 2 ] The children involved are M.S., (or “M.”) born […], 2009 and E.S.-B., (or “E.”) born […], 2012. The Mother of both children is D.S. (or “the Mother”), born […], 1988, and the Father of E. is M.B. (or “the Father”) born […], 1988.

The Father of M. is unknown. [ 3 ] The children were apprehended by the Society from the care of their parents on November 29, 2013 because of injuries to M. which resulted in criminal charges being laid against the Father by Belleville Police. [ 4 ] A temporary care hearing was held on January 9, 2014. The children were ordered to remain in the care of the Society subject to supervised access for the Mother three times a week, and once a week for the Father. The children have remained in care since their apprehension.

Position of the Society [ 5 ] The Society asks that the children be found in need of protection pursuant to sections 37(2)(a)(i) (physical harm):37(2)(b)(i) (risk of physical harm) and 37(2)(g) (risk of emotional harm) of the Child and Family Services Act (R.S.O.1990,c.C.11 ,as am.) (The Act). Further it is requested that upon disposition the children be made wards of the Crown and placed with the Society with no access to the parents.

Position of the Mother [ 6 ] The Mother asks that no protection finding be made, and the children be returned to her care or in the alternative that the children are returned to her, subject to Society supervision. Her mother (maternal grandmother) supports her plan. Position of the Father [ 7 ] The Father asks that no protection finding be made, and he seeks access to both children, and asks that E. be placed with him. His mother (paternal grandmother) supports his plan. Position of M.’s Lawyer [ 8 ] M.’s lawyer supports the position of the Society for Crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.

Brief History of Society Involvement with the Parents prior to the apprehension [ 9 ] The Mother is now 27 years old. She is on a disability for cognitive limitations. [ 10 ] She became a ward of the Society when she was 15 years when she disclosed that her step father, G.C., assaulted her. She subsequently recanted these allegations and left the care of the Society when she was 16 years old. [ 11 ] In November 2005, when the Mother was 17 years old she had a son. He was apprehended from her care by the Frontenac Children’s Aid Society shortly after his birth.

She had a daughter born in […] 2006 who was also apprehended from her care. Both children were found to be in need of protection and were made wards of the Crown in 2009 and have been adopted. A

section 54 assessment authored by Dr. Christopher Cooper, PhD, and Ms. Rose Wenglenski, MSW, of the Kingston Family Court Clinic dated November 28, 2007 was filed in these proceedings pursuant to

section 50 of the Act. [ 12 ] The Father was subject to child protection proceedings in Hastings County in 2006 with respect to a step son, H., then in 2007 a daughter, Ma. and in 2008 another daughter, Me. The children were found to be in need of protection and placed in the custody of the

paternal grandparents in 2008. A

section 54 assessment dated April 16, 2007 that was authored by Ms. Julie Gowthorpe MSW and Dr. Beckett PhD. was filed pursuant to

section 50 of the Act. [ 13 ] With respect to M., the Society has been involved since her birth. M. was apprehended from her Mother at the hospital, and returned to the care of her Mother 6 weeks later by the Court on the condition that she live with and be supervised by her grandmother. The concerns at that time were the Mother’s cognitive functioning and her struggles to maintain a clean and safe home. In December 2010, M. was again apprehended because of unexplained bruising. She was returned to the care of her Mother in May 2011 pursuant to a supervision order.

In December 2011, the supervision order involving M. was terminated. [ 14 ] In 2012, the Society conducted an investigation as to allegations that the Father had inappropriately physically disciplined the children H. and Ma. This resulted in a direction from the Society that the Father’s access with all of his children be supervised. [ 15 ] The Father met the Mother in 2010 when M. was 9 months old and moved in with her in May 2012.

Because the Society was concerned about the Father’s drug use and inappropriate physical discipline with H. and Ma. his access to the Mother’s child and E. was supervised. [ 16 ] In August 2013, M. had a seizure and an ambulance was called to the parent’s home. The society became involved after the paramedic and initial attending physician reported general neglect and bruising of the child. [ 17 ] In October 2013, the Mother called the Society to report the concerning behaviours of her daughter, M. who was acting out in a sexual way.

There was a Society investigation, but no disclosure of sexual abuse was made at the time. [ 18 ] The parents who had struggled with illegal drug use in the past were found to have used Fentanyl in November 2013 while they were on the methadone program. The Society had been considering a termination of their voluntary supervision but did not withdraw because of the Fentanyl drug use and the report from the paramedic. The apprehension to the start of trial [ 19 ] On November 29, 2013, M. went to school and her Educational Assistant (EA) noticed bruising on her neck and petechiae around her eyes.

The child volunteered that her Dad had caused the marks by cuffing her on the bum and grabbing her around the neck. [ 20 ] The Society was called and there was a subsequent investigation by the Society and the police. Both children were apprehended without a warrant and the Father was charged with assault causing bodily harm. [ 21 ] The Society application for a six month Society wardship was amended in May 2014 to request that the children be made wards of the Crown.

E. has been in care of the Society for 22 months, and cumulatively M. has been in care for 2 and half years. [ 22 ] In June 2014, the Father’s access was suspended by the court until after his criminal trial, which at the time was scheduled for July 17, 2014. Subsequently, the trial was adjourned to November 2014. [ 23 ] The parties consented to an assessment pursuant to

section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act , (R.S.O.1990, c.C.11 as am.) on August 7, 2014. The assessment was conducted by Dr. Jeremy Mills, a clinical psychologist and Ms. Cathie Shurie, a social worker. The assessment was completed on November 4, 2014, and filed in the Trial Record. [ 24 ] On November 10, 2014, the Father pleaded guilty to assaulting M. in the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice G. Griffin. He was placed on probation for one year.

At this trial he reasserted his innocence and considerable focus was placed on the question of whether he assaulted M. [ 25 ] In January 2015, a settlement conference was held and 5 trial dates were set for May 2015. Subsequently 10 additional days were provided.

Although in January 2014 permission was granted to the Society and the parents to bring motions for disclosure of police records, doctor’s records, as well as other records, no one brought a motion until April 2015 after the pretrial conference. [ 26 ] The late disclosure caused some of the subsequent delays in completing the trial in a timely fashion as the parties continued to receive disclosure during the course of the trial. [ 27 ] All parties consented to a blended hearing on whether the children are in need of protection and the disposition and placement of the children.

I did not consider evidence that went to the disposition in determining whether the children were in need of protection. [ 28 ] The Society and the Children’s Lawyer asks that I consider 25 out of Court statements (hearsay) made by M. to her educational assistant, Society workers, the police, emergency physician, foster parents and her counsellor, as to the truth of their contents. The society also asks that I consider videotaped statements made by M. to the police and a society worker.

Six voir dire affidavits were filed in support of admitting out of court statements and the witnesses to whom the statements were made testified. All parties agreed that the child should not testify at this trial. [ 29 ] On consent of all the parties, blended voir dire(

s) were held as to the statements and I indicated that I would rule on the admissibility of the statements, and if admitted for what purpose, at the end of the trial. The parents did not contest that the statements were made by M., but objected to them being admitted for the truth of the statement. [ 30 ] The evidence of the Society was presented in chief by affidavits. There were several affidavits from supervised access workers that were filed without the necessity of workers attending. These were the affidavits of Tina Waite, Leanne Piercy, Jennifer Kearns, and Patty Sweet. Dr. Ptolemy filed an affidavit as to

interpretation of urine drug screens of the Father. [ 31 ] The case for the Society consisted of the following witnesses who testified and provided affidavits:

-Society workers: Megan Walkom, Elizabeth Dall, Robert Hill, Sheri Colvin and Karin Kranenburg. -Supervised access workers: Tahra Treverton, Laura Crowe and Julie Hoskins. -The children's foster parents, S.D. and Ch.B. -Physicians: Dr. Hadley of the Sunrise methadone program; Dr. Pincock, the emergency doctor at Quinte Healthcare Belleville General Hospital and Dr. Nolan the pediatrician at Hotel Dieu in Kingston. -Dr. Gowthorpe, PhD., Social worker and therapist for M. -Angela Rogers, Early Childhood Educator from Q[...] School [ 32 ] Dr. Jeremy Mills and Cathy Shurie, the authors of the

section 54 assessments, testified and their reports were filed. [ 33 ] Detective Pat Keller of the Belleville Police Services testified and provided video statements of M. and the Father and an audio statement of the Mother. [ 34 ] The Mother's evidence consisted of her mother, P.S., her sister J.S., and herself. [ 35 ] The Father's evidence consisted of the paternal grandmother, C.B.; his sister A.

B.; a Society worker, Dawn Atkins; and himself. [ 36 ] On consent, voluminous case notes of the supervised access visits and numerous case notes from the Society and police occurrence reports were filed as business records. There were 118 exhibits. The parents or witnesses involved in the police occurrences testified with respect to many of these reports. [ 37 ] Affidavits and drug test results of the parents’ hair analysis were not admitted into evidence. This was the result of recent directions to Children’s Aid Societies not to rely on them in light of the Mother Risk review of drug and alcohol analysis.

However, the urine screens from the methadone clinic were admitted. [ 38 ] The Father’s documents brief included police occurrences reports; a letter from his current probation officer; case notes from Society worker, Ms. Walkom; numerous supervised access notes and a Society referral report. He also filed a flash drive containing videos of the methadone clinic showing the Mother and Father at the clinic at the same times, but not interacting with each other.

Issues [ 39 ] The issues to be considered by the court are whether the children are in need of protection and what disposition is in their best interests. [ 40 ] The Society submits that the children are in need of protection because of the physical harm that M. had suffered by being assaulted by her stepfather.

Further that E. was at risk of physical harm because of her sister’s injuries, the unexplained bruising on her cheek, the severe rash on her buttocks and back when she came into care. [ 41 ] In addition, the Society submits that both children are at risk of emotional harm and physical harm due to: the conflict between the parents; the Mother's emotional detachment from the children; the history of general neglect of the children; and the Mother's cognitive delay which impacts on her ability to provide consistent care for her children without extensive support.

The Society also submitted that the parents’ ongoing use of marijuana while on the methadone program and their occasional use of opiates during the time they were on the methadone program could impact on their ability to care for the children. The Society asks that I consider evidence of the parents’ past parenting, including consideration of the

section 54 assessments concerning their older children and Society involvement prior to the apprehension. [ 42 ] The Society asks that the children be made Crown wards with no access. There was no evidence as to their plans for the children or how terminating access would impact on the children or affect their ability to be adopted. At present they are placed in separate foster homes. [ 43 ] The Mother and Father in their filed answers submit that the children are not in need of protection nor that supervision is required.

However at trial the Mother indicated that she would consent to be supervised by the Society. [ 44 ] Counsel for the Society and the Father provided written opening submissions and counsel for the parents, M. and the Society provided written closing statements which were very helpful. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SOCIETY EVIDENCE Angela Rogers, Educational Assistant with Q[...] School [ 45 ] Ms. Angela Rogers was the educational assistant in M.’s kindergarten class at Q[...] School.

It was she that called the Society concerning the bruises she saw on M. on December 29, 2013. [ 46 ] She testified that M. came to school with her Father around 10:00 am. This was one hour after school began. The Father did not speak with Ms. Rogers. While she was standing behind her, Ms. Rogers noticed noted red and bruising marks on M.’s neck. When

she looked directly at M. she noticed bruising on and under her chin, and fine petechiae dots around M.’s eyes. Later she noted bruising on her back and hip. [ 47 ] She immediately took M. out to the class to a mirror in a private area and had her look at herself in the mirror. She pointed to M.’s bruises and asked “what do you see”?” M. volunteered that she had “owies” from being “cuffed” by her Dad. She said that her dad had taken her by the neck and cuffed her on the bum. Ms.

Rogers in her testimony confirmed that the injuries were consistent with the photographs entered into evidence by the Society. [ 48 ] After the disclosure was made to her, Ms. Rogers contacted the Society worker Ms. Walkom. She said she would have asked the Father about the injuries on M. , but he had left after dropping of M. without talking to her, which was consistent with the parents’ practice. [ 49 ] Lateness and absenteeism was a consistent issue for M. and Ms. Rogers testified that M. was often unkempt with her hair not washed, in dirty clothing and not clean.

She would have raised these issues with her Mother, but M. was not at school regularly enough. She testified that M. was quiet, but would participate when asked. She needed verbal reminders as to routine and expectations as it was her first year in school. [ 50 ] Ms. Rogers handled the question of M.’s injuries in an exceptionally sensible and competent manner. She did not ask any leading questions of M., she simply pointed out the bruises to her and asked what she saw. M.’s statement is spontaneous, she has no time to think, she just reacts and says the injuries came at the hands (literally) of her dad.

M. was in an area away from the other students when she made her disclosure. Ms. Rogers took notes about the incident shortly after M.’s disclosure and did not make any additions or deletions. Ms. Rogers believed M. I accept her evidence as to what she observed and heard. Although she testified that M. said she was picked up by the neck, when she refreshed her memory by looking at her notes she confirmed that M. had said she was grabbed. She was a very credible witness, fair and impartial. I accept her evidence. MEDICAL EVIDENCE Dr.

Pincock -Emergency Department Family Physician [ 51 ] On November 29, 2013, M. was taken by the Society worker, Meagan Walkom, and E. by Elizabeth Dall, to the Quinte Heath Care- Belleville Emergency Department. [ 52 ] There, the girls were seen by a triage nurse and Dr. Pincock who was on duty that day. Dr. Pincock noted 4 distinct marks in a linear fashion on the front right side of M.’s neck. He also noted some abrasions on the left posterior part of her neck. There was also some bruising on her left lateral thigh and left flank and a few small bruises on her shins.

In addition, she had petechiae haemorrhaging around both of her eyes. He described the petechiae as small areas of blood in the skin in the surface caused by lack of oxygen to the brain. He determined that it was likely that she had been strangled. [ 53 ] Dr. Pincock asked the child what had caused the bruises and she spontaneously volunteered that her Father had grabbed her around the neck. He said that the statement was given without hesitation and he was aware of no coercion or manipulation of the child to obtain the statement.

He found her explanation as to the cause of the bruising to be consistent with the injuries. He said that the injuries were concerning and the four lateral bruises appeared to be in the shape of finger prints. He also found M.to be reliable in answering other questions. He said that she was pleasant and cooperative and not upset. He said that he was able to understand her language. He believed what M. told him about the injuries. [ 54 ] When Dr.

Pincock was asked if the bruising and petechiae could have been caused by someone grabbing M.’s coat by the back and pulling her back to prevent her from falling down the stairs, he indicated that he was not sure how that could have caused the injuries because petechiae is generally caused by elevated venous pressure. As to the finger marks on her neck he indicated that light palpation would not likely cause that bruising. [ 55 ] Dr. Pincock was cross-examined as to why M.’s neck had 4 lateral bruises on one side and abrasions on the other.

It was suggested that M. could not have been strangled because her injuries would have been symmetrical. In response Dr. Pincock answered that that the abrasions on the left side could have been caused by fingernails, rings, zippers or collars. [ 56 ] He also testified that having low blood platelets would not cause petechiae around the eyes. It may cause it in the lower extremities of the body. He confirmed that a seizure would be a consideration for petechiae, but there was no evidence that the child had a fever on her arrival.

In his opinion, compression of the blood vessels in her neck is the more likely cause of the petechiae. [ 57 ] He could not comment on how long M. was strangled to cause her injuries. He said it could have been seconds or minutes. [ 58 ] As to E. he noted a small bruise on her right cheek and an extensive rash on her body and around her diaper area. He also noted what he thought were flecks of dirt in her ears. She had significant dry skin on her back and red spots and bumps. His impression was the rash was contact dermatitis or, diaper rash, a yeast infection or eczema.

He could not comment on what likely caused the bruise on E.’s check. [ 59 ] The evidence of the doctor was compelling and credible; he confirmed the injuries to M. and the likely cause. He also observed the extensive rash on E. and the bruise on her check. He gave his evidence in a fair, objective and impartial way. Dr. Catherine Nolan [ 60 ] Dr. Nolan testified by video link from Kitchener. She is a pediatrician who, at the time she examined the children, was working at the Hotel Dieu and KGH in Kingston through the Queen’s University Medical School. Dr. Nolan assessed children when

there was a suspicion of child physical or sexual abuse. Now Dr. Nolan works with Mc Master University in the child advocacy program. [ 61 ] Counsel consented to Dr. Nolan’s report of December 17, 2013 being entered into evidence and they also agreed that she is an expert in pediatrics and assessment of child abuse. I concurred. Her expertise is required, relevant and necessary to the issues to be decided. She is qualified, independent and impartial. [ 62 ] On Dec. 17, 2013, Dr. Nolan saw both children. The children were with Tahra Treverton, the Society worker and their foster parents.

The worker also brought her a disk with photographs of the children’s injuries on it. [ 63 ] She examined M. and noted a number of marks and bruises. She testified at length about the inexact science or art of determining the age of a bruise. She said there is not good research concerning the age of bruises and she could not determine how old the bruises were that she saw on M.

She also testified that she could not determine that the four symmetrical bruises were finger prints. [ 64 ] On cross examination, it was suggested that during a seizure in October 2013, M. fell and the bruises on her back were due to that fall. Dr. Nolan said that the bruise would have had to have been very deep to be still visible in December. [ 65 ] She indicated that the bruising on the child’s shins and knees was not concerning. What was concerning was the bruising in the buttock and neck area. These were areas where a child would not commonly have accidental bruising.

The buttocks have fatty cushioning so the area is generally protected from bruising accidentally. [ 66 ] The bruises on the neck were more concerning to her. They occurred on multiple planes. She said this would be suspicious in the absence of an explanation. She also testified that petechiae around the eyes could have been caused by a strangulation injury.

She said that the blood would have had no place to drain out so it pools around the eyes. [ 67 ] She was aware of the Father’s explanation that he had pulled M.’s hood on her coat to prevent her from falling down stairs and then gently felt around her neck to check for injury. [ 68 ] Because of the placement of the bruising she explained that the Father would have had to have pulled back, then to the side, and then to the other side of the child to cause the bruising to be on the three different planes. She described the child as being ricocheted.

She said the injuries were consistent with M.’s disclosure of strangulation. In her report at Exhibit 72, she indicated at page 5, “ the mechanism described by M.’s stepfather of pulling on the hood of M.’s coat as she was falling down the stairs does not sufficiently explain the extent of bruising over multiple planes around M.’s neck and collar bone .” She did not interview M. She said that she is not trained to interview children. [ 69 ] During her investigation she also spoke to the Mother on two occasions to obtain a family history to rule out abnormal bruising.

The Mother had indicated that M. had excessive bruising. Because there was another child in the Mother’s family with M.’s surname who had haemophilia, they wanted to check M. for the condition. Subsequently it was found that this child was not a blood relative of M., but related by marriage only. She referred M. to have blood work. There were some elevations in the results. Because of the concern, Dr. Silva, a specialist in haematology, was consulted. [ 70 ] Dr. Silva prepared a report as to M.’s blood work and said that a blood disorder was extremely unlikely. Dr. Nolan agrees with this diagnosis.

The report was filed without the necessity of the physician testifying. [ 71 ] I am satisfied with the evidence of Dr. Nolan that the injuries suffered by M. were as a result of being choked, grabbed or strangled by her father and not by her coat hood being grabbed to prevent her from falling down the stairs. His explanation has no air of reality, in particular after hearing the testimony of the Father and the Mother. [ 72 ] The evidence of Dr. Nolan was balanced and fair. She did not exaggerate or overstate her opinion. I found her to be impartial and objective.

I accept her findings that M.’s injuries were not accidental. POLICE INVESTIGATION Det. Patrick Kellar of Belleville Police Service [ 73 ] In the course of the investigation of the assault against M., the Belleville Police Services and the Society conducted a video interview of M. at the police station. A transcript was not provided as the charge did not proceed to trial because the Father pleaded guilty in November 2014. It was agreed that the video would be shown and entered as an exhibit. [ 74 ] The video was approximately 20 minutes in length. It was recorded on December 3, 2013. M., Det. Kellar and Ms.

Walkom are shown in the video. M. appears to be an attractive young girl. She quickly wanted to sit on Ms. Walkom’s lap when Det. Kellar started asking her questions. [ 75 ] She clearly said that her daddy had knocked her off her chair at breakfast and threw her and gave her a spanking. She said that she got a lot of spankings from her daddy. She also said that her daddy had grabbed her by her neck and she showed Ms. Walkom and Det. Kellar by grabbing her own neck with both hands. [ 76 ] It was difficult to put into context everything that M. disclosed. She said that she had to clean up and she was hungry.

She said that she didn’t go to school. She said that her mommy was there, but E. was in bed. She said her mommy didn’t do anything. She said that her Mother didn’t spank her. [ 77 ] The detective tried to test whether M. knew the difference between a truth and a lie by asking her if the colour of his shirt was purple or brown. It was clear to me that M. didn’t know her colours and it was difficult for me observing the tape to tell what colour the Det.’s shirt was. So this line of questioning was not helpful.

[ 78 ] It was hard for M. to remain focused in the videotape. She was only 4 years old when interviewed. However, the statements made by her were made without coaching or coercion by Det. Kellar or Ms. Walkom. I saw no inducements made or leading questions asked. She appeared relatively relaxed and comfortable. [ 79 ] She was describing what had happened to her within days of the event. If she had testified in this trial, she would be recalling what had happened to her two years ago.

I find that the statement is necessary and reliable especially when considered with the medical evidence and the first disclosure to Ms. Rogers. CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS Ms. Meagan Walkom, Immediate Response Worker with the Society [ 80 ] Ms. Walkom holds a degree in criminology and has worked in various positions at the Society over the last 9 years. [ 81 ] Ms. Walkom started working with the family in August 2013 as a result of the report from Effram Ellenbogen, the paramedic who attended at the home as a result of the child having a febrile seizure.

The paramedic was concerned about the state of the home, the child’s hygiene, her high fever and extensive bruising. The initial examining physician, Dr. Bell, expressed concern that the bruising was not consistent with a seizure and falling. Subsequently, the child was seen by a pediatrician, Dr. Piteau who, although he had neglect concerns, indicated the bruising could plausibly be from the child playing and falling and not abuse. [ 82 ] Because of the general neglect concerns, Ms. Walkom attended at the parents’ home and met with the family and children.

She noted that the home was dirty, cluttered, had a strong odour of cigarettes and smoke, with dirty laundry and garbage on the floor and in corners of the house. [ 83 ] The Mother indicated that the parents were in the process of cleaning and the home and the smell was caused from the windows being closed while they were at the hospital with M. the previous day. [ 84 ] The worker met with the family regularly from August to November 29 th , 2013. The parents were cooperative with her and signed consents so she could speak with service providers with whom they were involved.

The parents were both involved with the methadone program because of issues of drug abuse. The children had a family doctor, Dr. Maraj. They were also involved with the speech and language program and they used Family Space. M. had been referred to a pediatrician in Kingston to monitor her seizures. [ 85 ] Ms. Walkom saw the children at home and she also saw M. at Q[...] School. When Ms. Walkom had a scheduled visit the home would be clean, but not so when she had an unannounced visit. By October 2013, Ms.

Walkom was preparing to close her file, but there were subsequent concerns. [ 86 ] In October 2013, the mother contacted the Society to report that there may be a report that her home was in a poor condition from someone with whom she had had conflict. The Mother also advised that M. was acting strangely in a sexual manner, “humping” teddy bears while she was naked and “fingering her vagina”. An investigation occurred, the child was examined by the family doctor and Ms. Walkom interviewed M. but the suspected abuse was not verified.

The suspected abuser at this time was the mother’s cousin P.N. [ 87 ] In November 19, 2013, the Mother called give her worker a “heads up” that her methadone doctor, Dr. Hadley would be reporting a “dirty” urine test and her methadone carries had been taken from her. The Mother told Ms. Walkom that she had Fentanyl in her system from a pain patch that she had and she had extra methadone in her system. She said that Dr. Hadley’s testing was incorrect or she had not been drinking enough water to flush the drugs out of her system.

She said that her ability to care for the children was not impaired while she was taking Fentanyl. [ 88 ] On November 27th, 2013, Dr. Hadley contacted the Society to report the Fentanyl issue. He said that the mother denied using the drug but he was able to verify from the family doctor and pharmacy that she obtained the drug without disclosing that she was on the methadone program. Dr. Hadley described the drug as a dangerous and toxic opiate. During this time, the Father was also using Fentanyl. Ms. Walkom was concerned about the mother and father’s use of the drug.

I am concerned about the deception to her physicians. [ 89 ] Then on November 29, 2013 Ms. Walkom received a call from Ms. Rogers, the Educational Assistant in M.’s class. Ms. Walkom attended the school to investigate. She was taking M. downstairs to the basement office of the school where previously she had interviewed M. before. Ms. Walkom in her affidavit and confirmed in her evidence at trial said “ while going downstairs, M. stopped and turned to me and said, “I showed my teacher my owies”, and touched her neck.

I asked her how she got these owies and M. put her hands around her neck in a choking manner and told me “daddy did this” while shaking her head back and forth”. [ 90 ] Ms. Walkom told M. that she wanted to hear more about this and took her to a private office. In the office, M. repeated that her Father had choked her and added that he knocked her off a chair and told Ms. Walkom that this hurt and she was crying. Ms. Walkom noted the bruising that was also noted by Ms. Rogers and the doctors. Ms. Walkom testified that she was alone when she first interviewed the child.

M. had previously talked about M.B. as her Father. She had talked about him in a positive way. Ms. Walkom had no reason to disbelieve M. [ 91 ] She also observed that M. was in need of bathing and her hair was not brushed and her clothing appeared dirty. [ 92 ] Assessing that M. and her sister were in immediate risk of harm from their parents, upon consultation with her supervisor, she apprehended M. No evidence was tendered as to why a warrant was not obtained but in the circumstances I find it was appropriate to apprehend for purposes of taking the child to the hospital.

If the child had been returned to her home or the parents came to get her before the warrant was granted, it would not have been safe given the disclosures made by her.

[ 93 ] Ms. Walkom photographed the injuries on M. including the four lateral bruises on her neck, abrasions on her neck and bruises on her back, legs and arms. The bruise on E.’s face was also photographed. These photographs were filed as exhibits. [ 94 ] While at the hospital later in the day, the Mother arrived. She was demanding to speak to a Society worker or doctor. She smelled strongly of marijuana smoke. She told Ms. Walkom that neither she nor the Father had hurt the children. She said that the marks were from M. falling. She denied physical discipline had occurred.

The Mother said that she didn’t believe what M. had disclosed. Neither of the children had asked for either of their parents while they were apprehended, during the transportation or medical examination [ 95 ] Ms. Walkom described M. as a friendly, energetic, curious child. In her affidavit she indicated that she responded easily to strangers. She always spoke easily and openly with Ms. Walkom. M. had told Ms. Walkom details of her home life and activities before and Ms. Walkom believed what she had been told about the injuries. Ms. Walkom recorded the disclosures.

M. appeared to her to be able to recall events accurately. There was no evidence that the child was coached or coerced. The statements about her father were quite freely made by M. [ 96 ] Ms. Walkom was involved with the family after the apprehension and was involved with some of the supervised family visits after the children were in care. [ 97 ] She was involved when there was an overnight visit in the Mother’s home supervised by the maternal grandmother. This was scheduled for Dec. 23 rd , 2013. Ms. Walkom made it clear that the Father was not allowed in the family home.

It was a term of his criminal court release that he have no contact with the Mother and no contact with M. unless ordered by the court or approved by the Society. [ 98 ] On Dec 27, 2013, Ms. Walkom went to the Mother’s home with M. and the foster mother, S.D. The Mother was not ready for them, she said she didn’t know she had a visit that day and needed time to clean up. While waiting outside the home, the foster Mother told her that M. had disclosed that the Father was present in the home for the Christmas visit. Ms. Walkom asked M. about this.

M. appeared uncomfortable and said it was supposed to be a secret. [ 99 ] Subsequently, the Belleville police received an anonymous tip that the Father had been at the Mother’s home. Ms. Walkom and Detective Pat Kellar of the police did a joint investigation. The Mother denied that the Father had been at her home. Ms. Walkom, however, believed M. The Mother siad that the child had seen her Father on December 24, 2013 at the methadone clinic. The maternal grandmother was interviewed. She also denied that the Father had been at the home.

The Father was not charged with a breach of his bail conditions; however, on December 24, 2015, the Father was found in his mother’s home without his surety and he was charged with breaching his release conditions. Ms. Walkom could not interview the Father herself because one of his release conditions was to have no contact with her. [ 100 ] From the courtroom the Father spoke out loudly and angrily that Ms. Walkom had asked for that condition. Ms. Walkom replied that she did not. [ 101 ] Ms.

Walkom was concerned that the Mother didn’t believe M. about the cause of her physical injuries and she was coaching her to recant. [ 102 ] The worker testified that although the parents’ home was clean for announced visits when she had an unannounced visit the home would be dirty, with piles of garbage, a bad smell and very cluttered. [ 103 ] Ms. Walkom was concerned about the Mother’s ability to keep her children safe from harm. While she was supervising the family, Ms. Walkom was concerned about the Mother’s drug use, the pattern of neglect, and the Mother’s ability to meet the children’s emotional needs.

She was also concerned about the Father’s ability to control his anger and his excessive discipline of the children. During the course of the trial the Father had to be warned several times about his angry outbursts. [ 104 ] I found Ms. Walkom to be a fair and credible witness who was willing to work with the family and support them. I find that despite this support, the parents struggled and eventually failed to keep the children safe from harm. Ms. Elizabeth Dall, Emergency Response Child Protection Worker [ 105 ] Ms.

Dall was the emergency response child protection worker with the Society on Friday November 29, 2013. She and Robert Burris, another child protection worker, attended to apprehend E. as a result of M.’s disclosure of her Father causing her injuries. In addition to her testimony, she swore an affidavit. [ 106 ] The workers attended the Little Rascals day care where they spoke with the owner and a worker. Ms. Dall and Mr. Burris, then transported E. to the hospital for examination. Ms.

Dall noted that E. was quite attached to her and had no issues in leaving with her despite the fact that she was a stranger to her. [ 107 ] At the hospital Ms. Dall noted excessive amounts of dried dirt in E.’s ears. After E. was undressed she also noticed slight scratches over her entire body although they appeared focused in the area of her left thigh and upper shoulders. She also had dried blood in the inside of her nose. Her skin was extremely dry and flakey. She had a large brown and red coloured bruise on her right cheek at the corner of her mouth. Mr.

Burris photographed the bruise. [ 108 ] E. had a severe diaper rash and her vaginal area presented a vibrant red colour and irritation toward the back of her thighs outwards. The worker noted that E.’s clothing was filthy, with stains of brown and dark spots. It also had a strong smell of cigarette

smoke. [ 109 ] The workers then attended at the parents’ home. The parents would not allow them entry, saying they were leaving to pick up their girls from school. The worker advised them of the apprehension of the children and the injury to M. Ms. Dall noted a very overwhelming and pungent smell of marijuana smoke. This odour did not cease during Ms.

Dall’s conversation with the Mother which occurred in the hall as she would not let the workers in the home. [ 110 ] The Mother indicated that she had anticipated there would be concerns regarding the children’s bruising specifically E.’s check as “her girls fall down often” but they were not being harmed. She said that any marks on M. would be caused by her shirt rubbing up against her skin and the dry weather. [ 111 ] The Mother also said that she did not see any marks on M. in the morning and was not aware of any scratches on her neck.

She said that M. had a seizure disorder and requires several medical appointments. She refused to hand over the heath cards for the children indicating that she “needed to protect her parental rights”. [ 112 ] The Father did not ask about what had happened to the children. [ 113 ] Ms. Dall was a straight forward witness. Her observations were consistent with the testimony of the other witness who saw the girls on the day of their apprehension. I find her evidence credible and I accept it. Sheri Colvin, Child Protection Worker [ 114 ] Ms. Colvin is a child protection worker with the Society.

She was involved with the case from January 13, 2014 to May 26, 2014. She was also the worker involved with the father’s older children. The file was transferred to her from the immediate response worker Meagan Walkom. Ms. Colvin is an experienced child protection worker with a degree in sociology and a social service worker diploma from college. Ms. Colvin filed an affidavit and testified. A number of her case notes were also filed as business records. [ 115 ] At this time of the file transfer, the Mother was having access in her home supervised by a supervised access worker. [ 116 ] On January 14, 2014, Ms.

Colvin received information from Ms. Walkom that because of a disclosure that the Mother was allowing a known sex offender, A.L., to reside in her home there would be no further access for the children in the Mother’s home. This disclosure had come from A.L.’s probation officer who indicated A.L. gave the mother’s address as his own. [ 117 ] On January 20, 2014, Ms. Colvin referred the Mother to the Parenting for Success Program, a parenting program offered by the Society. On January 28, 2014, Ms.

Colvin received information that the Mother’s drug urine screens for her methadone program showed Fentanyl in her system. On Feb. 3, 2014, the Mother attended the Society office for a visit with her children. Ms. Colvin noticed a strong smell of marijuana on the Mother. On February 10, 2014, the worker had a discussion with the Mother about the protection concerns. The Mother accused Dr. Hadley of lying. She said she smelled of marijuana from being at someone else’s home. She refused to talk further with the worker.

Her next drug screen was negative for Fentanyl. [ 118 ] On March 29, 2014, M. disclosed to her foster Mother that her grandfather, “Poppa”, G.C., had touched her vagina. The worker conducted further investigation as a result of the disclosure. [ 119 ] On April 4, 2014, she and Detective Lentini interviewed the Father at the police station concerning the disclosures that M. had made. When he heard about the allegations that “Poppa” had touched M. he said “poor, little girl”. He didn’t know who poppa might be. He said M. referred to his Father as grandpa.

To his knowledge he said the Mother’s stepfather, G.C., does not see the children. [ 120 ] Ms. Colvin testified that the Father talked about P.N. who was suspected of touching M. in October 2013. The Father described him as “weird”. She said when she interviewed him that day he was very sad and wanted to give up. She encouraged him not to give up hope because things can always change. She also apologized to him because at Court the previous week he was told that the Society was now asking for Crown wardship of the children. They had a very frank discussion. The Father said that he had changed since Ms.

Colvin first met him when his older children were apprehended. She encouraged him not to give up. [ 121 ] They also talked about any potential kin placements of the children. He wanted to have the children placed with his parents (his Father subsequently died). She talked to him about how realistic this would be given the ill health of his Father and the fact that his parents had three children under the age of 9 in their care. She asked him to consider other placements for the children. [ 122 ] After Ms. Colvin and Detective Lentini had interviewed the Father, they decided to try to try to locate P.N.

They attended at an address where he had lived, and were advised that he had moved to Bleeker Avenue (this is where the Mother lived) [ 123 ] The same day (April 4, 2014), Ms. Colvin and Detective Lentini then decided to go to the Mother’s home to see if she had more information on P.N. The Mother indicated that P.N. was her cousin and perhaps her Mother could provide his address or her aunt, whose surname she could not remember. It was either N. or S. [ 124 ] At that time, coincidentally, A.L., was the Mother’s home. The Mother said that he was a friend of her brother who was also in the home.

A.L. was the same individual about whom that Ms. Walkom had received information in January 2014, and Ms. Colvin questioned the Mother about in February 2014. At that time the Mother denied he was in her home. [ 125 ] The Mother was very defensive about A.L. being in her home. Neither the Mother nor A.L. seemed concerned that there were many children in the complex. A.L. left the home. The Mother said to Ms. Colvin that she had reported her to the police for saying that A.L. was living with her. Ms.

Colvin reminded her that it was the probation worker who had made the initial report. [ 126 ] On April 24, 2014, Ms. Colvin and Detective Lentini interviewed the Mother and took a sworn statement from her at the Belleville police station. This was after G.C. had been charged. The Mother said that M. refers to the Father’s father and P.N. as Poppa.

She denied that her step father would abuse children and that he had only seen M. twice in her life. However when her sister testified she said she had been abused by him as a child. She admitted that the Society told her G.C. couldn’t be around children. [ 127 ] But then spontaneously she said that approximately 2 years ago G.C. had taken M. to the store. She said she accompanied them. She then went on to say that G.C. lived with the family for a time.

On one occasion he changed M.’s pull up training pants in the morning while she and the Father were busy attending to E. [ 128 ] She went on to say to the worker and police officer that her Mother had picked up M. every evening and then returned her in the morning for day care so they wouldn’t “have to worry about anyone getting touched”. She admitted that G.C. had lived with them for 10 to 12 days. [ 129 ] Ms. Colvin testified that the Mother didn’t ask if M. was ok when she was told about the disclosure of inappropriate touching. [ 130 ] During Ms.

Colvin’s involvement with the Mother, the Mother expressed her displeasure with Ms. Colvin, accusing her of not working with her and trying to take her children away from her. Ms. Colvin supervised about 9 visits between the Mother and the children while she was her worker. [ 131 ] During one visit M. accidently hit her sister with a toy. M. began to cry and the Mother did nothing to comfort her. Instead she blamed M. During the visit M. repeatedly said, “Mommy, you’re making me nervous”. [ 132 ] The worker noted that the Mother appeared to be more affectionate with E. than M.

She also had to be warned about having adult conversations in front of the children such as issues of court or her access. [ 133 ] Ms. Colvin heard the Mother at the end of a visit ask M. if the man waiting was her volunteer driver. When M. said yes, the Mother told the driver that M. is known to lie and other people don’t know that, but she does (lie). [ 134 ] Ms.

Colvin noted that the Mother was consistent in her attendance and she seemed to genuinely attempt to implement parenting skills that she had learned in the Parenting for Success Program, such as singing to the children. [ 135 ] Subsequently, the Mother filed a complaint against Ms. Colvin. She is unaware of the nature of the complaint other than she was alleged to have been “mean” to the Mother. She denied this or raising her voice with the Mother. The Mother met with her supervisor and the file was transferred to Mr. Hill. She said that she would have preferred to have kept working with the Mother. [ 136 ] Ms.

Colvin was the worker involved with the Father’s older children who was apprehended from his care. She said that despite the Father’s initial reluctance to work with her they were able to overcome this and work together. [ 137 ] Ms. Colvin supervised 5 of the Father’s visits with the children. She indicated that he was able to praise the children, show affection and he played with them on the floor. Although he tended to get distracted, he also easily became reengaged with the children.

She did observe him to be sterner with M. than E. [ 138 ] She was concerned that on one visit the Father told M. “you got your Mom in trouble for saying things”. This was an interesting comment given it was he who was accused of assaulting M. [ 139 ] I found that Ms. Colvin’s evidence was credible. She had positive things to say about both parents. However, I share her concerns about the safety of the children in the parents’ care. The Mother cannot keep M. safe if she is inclined to disbelieve her. Further, the Mother has put the children in potentially unsafe environment by exposing them to known sex offenders.

The mother seems to lack the insight as to how her bad choices in associates can potentially impact on the safety of her children. [ 140 ] Ms. Colvin continued to be involved in the case as against G.C. She said there was a meeting held with the Crown Attorney and a victim witness worker. The video of M. was played. M. said “ I tricked you- he didn’t touch me ”. As a result of this, the Crown withdrew the charges; however, Ms. Colvin still considered the disclosure made by M. to be verified. For the purposes of this trial I do not need to make findings as to whether M. was sexually abused by G.C.

G.C. did not participate in this trial. [ 141 ] I accept that M. has made disclosures about G.C. and P.N. touching her private parts and they go to her state of mind and as such are an exception to the hearsay rule. She believes she has been touched, that is enough to show risk of emotional harm. Karin Kranenburg, Child Protection Worker [ 142 ] Ms. Karin Kranenburg has been the children’s services worker for children E. and M. since January 29, 2014. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in native studies and a bachelor of social work. Ms.

Kranenburg filed an affidavit and testified at the trial, and she referred to her case notes which were filed as business records. [ 143 ] Ms. Kranenburg’s evidence was that the children were initially placed in the foster home of Mr. and Mrs. D. M. initially did well in the D.’s home. She didn’t present with any stranger anxiety and would easily approach strangers. She was a busy child, requiring a lot of attention and supervision. [ 144 ] The foster Mother disclosed to Ms. Kranenburg that on March 29, 2014 M. made certain disclosures regarding her Poppa, G.C.

On April 17, 2014, G.C. was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of M. [ 145 ] In June 2014, the Society brought a motion to suspend the Father’s access to M. because of the impending criminal trial, M.’s behavioural issues and concerns that the Mother was speaking to the child about the child’s disclosures. The Father’s access was suspended and has not been reinstated.

The criminal trial that had been scheduled for July was adjourned until November 2014. [ 146 ] The Society provided a child youth worker to support M. in the home, but the foster parents eventually asked that M. be moved to a new home. On June 16, 2014, Ms. D. the foster Mother told the Society that they could no longer care for M.

[ 147 ] Because of M.’s behavioural issues and the possible impact on M. in view of the impending criminal court trials, on July 8 th , 2014, she began play therapy with Dr. Julie Gowthorpe, a social worker to help address her emotion needs. [ 148 ] In July 21, 2014, M. spontaneously said to Ms. Kranenburg and the foster Mother that “mommy has told me to tell the Court that I lied, that I lied about Daddy, but I didn’t lie. Daddy choked me”.

This statement was not coached or coerced and there appeared to be no reason for M. to lie. [ 149 ] M. spent time at the potential new foster home of Sc. and Ch.B. for relief time and pre-placement time. M. liked the new foster parents. She mentioned that she didn’t want E. to come with her. M. asked if she could live in the new home. The decision to move M. away from her sister was not undertaken lightly by the Society or the foster Mother, Ms. D. [ 150 ] On July 23, 2014, M. was moved to the home of her current foster parents, Mr. and Ms. B.

At the end of August, the foster parents were reporting similar behaviour that Mr. and Ms. D. observed. A child and youth worker was implemented to provide extra support. [ 151 ] In October 4, 2014, the foster parents reported that M. was experiencing night terrors and had problems getting ready for school in the morning. [ 152 ] On October 27, 2014, Ms. Kranenburg testified that victim witness advised her that the Father would be pleading guilty to assaulting M. and M. would no longer be required to testify. On November 10, 2014, the Father pleaded guilty to assaulting M. and was placed on probation.

He is not to have contact with M. unless there is written approval of the Society or a family court order. [ 153 ] On December 1, 2014, M. attended at the courthouse to prepare for the trial of G.C. Following the appointment, she had a visit with her Mother. M. told her Mother at the visit “ I tricked you. I tricked Poppa. He didn’t touch my privates. He didn’t ”. [ 154 ] On Dec. 3, 2014, the Mother told Ms. Kranenburg that the charges against G.C. were being dropped because M. lied.

This is in direct contrast to the Mother’s testimony in July 2015 in this trial where she said that she would support her daughter and although she believes her daughter is confused she will stand by her. The Mother also testified that she didn’t call her daughter a liar but that she lies. [ 155 ] On Dec 4, 2014, Ms. Kranenburg received confirmation from Victim Witness that as a result of M.’s disclosure at the meeting on Dec. 1, 2014, the charges would be dropped as against G.C.

However, on Dec. 5, 2014, the foster parent reported another disclosure from M. about G.C. [ 156 ] She describes the Mother treating M. more harshly than E. during visits until the resolution of the Father’s assault charge in November 2014. She described the Mother as not always being affectionate with the children. [ 157 ] As to positive observation, she described the Mother as being very consistent with her access. She was having access three times a week.

She testified that the Mother always brought snacks for the children. [ 158 ] She described the Mother as trying to follow the direction of the Society in terms of showing physical affection to the children but she said that it was difficult for her. The Mother had told Ms. Kranenburg that she was not hugged or loved in that way when she was a child. Ms. Kranenburg is concerned that the Mother struggles with providing consistent care and following direction. She is not consistent with appropriate messages and emotionally connecting with the children.

The Mother had problems with consistency in the discipline of the children. The worker had to give prompts and suggestions to her and she would be concerned about the Mother’s ability to care for the children without supervision. [ 159 ] Ms. Kranenburg testified that she was concerned that the Mother raised adult issues in front of the children. She described a visit where, during access, the Mother wanted to talk about Christmas access and accused Ms. Kranenburg of lying about what had happened at Court. She brought M. into the discussion.

She told M. that she would be living with Mommy soon. [ 160 ] She testified that the Father’s access was initially consistent but then she didn’t attend. He was always warm and affectionate with the children. There were some visits where he was distracted by his phone or reading books, but he came prepared for the visits. [ 161 ] She describes M. as busy, very intuitive, and very hyper vigilant, sweet and eager to learn. She enjoys imaginative play, crafts, and playing outside. She doesn’t have stranger anxiety.

She is engaged and likes to play with anything related to the movie “Frozen.” She likes to be outside. [ 162 ] Despite M.’s challenges, Ms. Kranenburg‘s affidavit shows that M. has made considerable gains since coming into care. The school report when M. initially came into care was that M. could not count past two, could not recognize letters and could not sing a song to completion and she didn’t know her shapes or colours. She does now. She is doing well academically but her caregivers and the school still struggle with her behaviours. She also described M. as being somewhat clumsy and prone to falling.

She is more hesitant now around strangers, which is good. [ 163 ] E. is described as doing well in her placement with no issues. She has been tested and shown to have some speech and language delays for which she is receiving assistance. [ 164 ] I found the witness to be credible. She provided a balanced view of the Mother and Father although she is obviously concerned about safety of the children in the care of the parents. Robert Hill [ 165 ] Mr. Hill was the family services worker for the Mother and the Father since May 2014 when he joined the Society.

He had been a Society worker in Cobourg previously and has considerable experience in mental health, domestic violence and risk assessment. This experience made him a good choice to provide support for the family.

[ 166 ] I was impressed with his balanced and “strength based” approach to the family, in particular the Mother. He was aware of all of the protection concerns of the Society and he knew that the position in May 2014 was that the children should be made wards of the Crown. Despite this, he encouraged the Mother to remember that there was considerable time before trial and she should make the best of the access because things could change. [ 167 ] He supervised most of the visits that occurred at the Society office. Other workers supervised the visits that occurred at the Mother’s home.

The Mother had two visits per week. The Father had his once a week visit at the Society office. [ 168 ] As to the Mother’s cognitive limitations, he said that he has worked with individuals with these challenges. He said that everyone is unique and she has skills, she is alive and well and functioning. He said that she may not connect the dots as fast as someone else. He was very respectful of the Mother. [ 169 ] He testified as to the Mother’s seeming preoccupation with food, using it for rewards and then withholding it for bad behaviour. He said the visits tended to be centred on food. So Mr.

Hill took the Mother to the Dollarama Store to have her pick out items that would encourage play and involve the girls. He said that she was trying to take his direction. [ 170 ] From his initial supervision of the visits at the Society office until recently he has seen some improvements. He testified that when the Mother first exercised access, she seemed to favour E. She would not pay as much attention to and be more critical of M. He tried to work with the Mother to get her to see that she was treating the girls differently. He was also concerned about the Mother’s lack of emotional response to M.

He said this improved around November 2014 when the Father pleaded guilty to assaulting M. [ 171 ] He noted the Mother was not that affectionate with the girls, but that seemed to be improving. He described her care of the children as adequate and she was reliable in attending the visits, but she is fairly rigid and doesn’t pick up on the cues of the children. [ 172 ] Around Christmas 2014, the Mother became angry with Mr. Hill about the Christmas access. She wanted an overnight visit in her home like the previous year. The Society did not agree. The Mother made a number of uncomplimentary comments about Mr.

Hill and the Society and made a veiled threat that she couldn’t wait to get him out in the community. Because of that threat, the Society had the next visit in the office instead of in the Mother’s home. To Mr. Hill’s credit his goal was to normalize the access as soon as possible, but he needed to assess the risk first. [ 173 ] When he had to warn the Mother about not discussing adult issues in front of the children, she was not happy but she tried to comply. However, Mr.

Hill was not able to follow the Mother to the bathroom with the children and M said to him “grandma is going to come and live with us” during one visit. He had to warn the Mother not to get M.’s hopes up. The mother told Mr. Hill that she just told M. that grandma would be part of the visits. Since the grandmother already attended some of the visits there would be no reason for the mother to tell M. this. I find that she was discussing adult issues in front of M. Mr.

Hill also testified that the Mother would sometimes become preoccupied with texting or looking at her phone and not be focused on the children. [ 174 ] Mr Hill testified that the Father’s visits with E. go well. He noted that the Father is able to read E.’s cues and he is affectionate and appropriate with E. The Father’s visits with M. were suspended on June 3 rd , 2014 after the Society brought a motion. The Society was concerned that M. was being influenced by her Mother to recant her allegations that her Father had choked her.

The visits have never been reinstated. [ 175 ] The parties consented to an assessment pursuant to

section 54 of the Act, and the assessor requested to see a visit between the Father and M. the Father was very angry with Mr. Hill because he had not had a visit with M. in months. Despite his concern, the visit went very well. Mr. Hill conceded that he should have arranged for a visit before the one that would be observed by the social work assessor. [ 176 ] Mr. Hill is concerned about the Father’s history of police occurrences and conflict. There are 77 occurrences from 1994 and 2014 in which the police attended where the Father was involved.

Although the Father is the complainant in some of the police occurrences there is a pattern of calls regarding assaults, mischief, and domestic disputes. The Mother has been involved in 41 police occurrences and again there are several domestic disputes, mischief and family disputes. [ 177 ] In review of the police occurrences, which were filed on consent of all of the parties as business records, there is a level of conflict and police involvement in this family that would not be conducive to a safe, nurturing conflict free environment for children.

The police are even called to resolve family disputes such as debt payment or relationship conflict. [ 178 ] Mr. Hill testified that the parents continue to use marijuana on a regular basis and the mother had Ritalin in her system in Feb. 2015. She told Mr. Hill that she had been given a marijuana cigarette laced with Ritalin from a friend. [ 179 ] Mr. Hill testified that he had asked the parents about kinship options when the

Section 54 was ordered in August 2014. The Father indicated that his parents or his sister should be considered. He later said he only wanted his parents to be considered. Mr Hill met with the grandparents and told them that he needed their decision as soon as possible so that the assessor could include then in the parenting capacity assessment.

He had heard nothing from the grandparents so after a week he contacted them again and they said that they did not want to be considered as a kinship option. [ 180 ] The Society had a permanency planning meeting in April 2015 and at that time the maternal grandmother indicated her willingness to be considered as a kin placement. When she testified she said she never put her name forward as a kin placement before because of her own child protection history. [ 181 ] Despite the earlier reservations, Mr. Hill was assessing the maternal grandmother.

She was attending some of the visits and she has indicated that she would move into the Mother’s two bedroom apartment to help her care for the children. However, the grandmother lives in Madoc with an adult son. He described the maternal grandmother having health issues and mobility issues and his affidavit describes her needing some time to rest and catch her breath after entering the Mother’s apartment.

[ 182 ] The paternal grandmother, who is now a widow now wants to be considered as a kinship placement for E. but this kinship option. This is complicated by an incident that occurred at her home on April 23, 2015. The police and Society were called to the home. Mr. Hill arrived at the home and spoke with the Father who told him that there had been an altercation between the paternal grandmother, the Mother, the Mother’s sister, J.S., the maternal grandmother and him. He said that his mother accused the Mother of stealing 5 dollars. The Mother called her mother to come and pick her up.

The maternal grandmother came with a small bat. He said that he disarmed her. The sister made threats. Then all three women left, but the Mother returned later to pick up her methadone which she had left behind. [ 183 ] The father volunteered that he had been seeing the Mother “ all along ” and that he wanted to “come clean”. Mr. Hill took this to mean that the parents had been seeing each other since the children came into care. The Father when he testified says he meant they had been together after November 2014. I interpret this to mean the parents were seeing each other since the apprehension.

What other meaning can be given to the words “all along” and coming clean? After November 2014 there were no criminal restrictions on the parents being together. [ 184 ] Mr. Hill talked to the paternal grandmother about whether she was going to file a plan of care. She said that she wanted nothing to do with the Mother’s side of the family. Mr. Hill was concerned about this incident. [ 185 ] Mr.

Hill indicated that he has concerns about: the ability of the parents to care for the children; that the Mother did not believe that her daughter had been hurt by the Father; that the parents were seeing each other when they were prohibited; their continued marijuana use; the conflict in their family relationship; the Mother’s limited engagement with the children. I, too, share his concerns. Mr. Hill was reasoned, fair and balanced. I found his evidence to be credible. SUPERVISED ACCESS WORKERS Ms. Julie Hoskins [ 186 ] Ms.

Julie Hoskins testified that she was a supervised access worker and supervised visits between the Mother and the children from December 2013 when the children first came into care until September 2014. These visits for the Mother occurred in the community at parks, splash pads and “Party Castle”.

For the majority of the visits the Mother attended alone, but there were visits attended by her Mother or one of her brothers, the paternal grandmother, C.B., and the Father’s older children. [ 187 ] She said that although she wasn’t given a lot of direction from the Society as to the exact nature of her role she did provide advice to the Mother and tried to tell the Mother when she had done something positive during the visits. [ 188 ] She described M. as a very busy girl. She was concerned that she was almost too affectionate. She said that E. is very cute and bright.

She said that she looks at you with her eyes and you want to “give in” to her. [ 189 ] I found Ms. Hoskins to be a fair and forthright witness. She was not prone to exaggeration or overstatement. She was quick to provide evidence that was positive for the Mother and when the evidence was not helpful to the Mother she was not judgmental. For example, she indicated that the Mother was always happy to see the children and attended consistently. She said that if direction or suggestions were given the Mother would sometimes listen and try to implement the advice.

She testified that the Mother sometimes successfully gave time outs for the children when they were misbehaving. She testified that the Mother seemed to struggle with showing affection to the children, especially M. and the Mother’s greeting to the children at the beginning of access often was not affectionate. However she was quick to add that the Mother is not “lovey dovey”. [ 190 ] There were some protection concerns that Ms. Hoskins noted during the visits. On two occasions she believed that the Mother was under the influence of a drug.

During a visit to the Belleville Fair she noted that the Mother was not providing adequate supervision of M., instead spending more time talking to her friends. She also noted that the Mother would be preoccupied with her phone. The Mother had a “police radio” app and was monitoring police calls instead of engaging with the children. She once commented that the police were going on a drug raid. She also had “to feed” her virtual pet on her phone. [ 191 ] Ms. Hoskins noted that M. was treated differently than E.

When she talked to the Mother about her observations, the Mother indicated that she treated the children differently because E. was younger and seemed to ignore the advice. The Mother seemed preoccupied with food during the visits and when Ms. Hoskins talked to her about it she said that “they are my girls and I’m going to feed them when I want to”. [ 192 ] Ms. Hoskins testified that M. would go to anyone and it worried her. Ms. Hoskins also worried about the safety of the Mother. She said there were issues of safety where the mother was living. I find that Ms.

Hoskins is a kind and caring person who was as concerned about the well-being of the Mother as she was for the children. [ 193 ] She testified that she would be concerned about the safety of the children in the care of their Mother because the Mother did not support M. in her disclosures and she doesn’t believe that M. can be kept safe. She also said that if the Mother had someone with her she might be able to care for the children. However she said that the Mother needs to take care of herself first. [ 194 ] When she supervised a visit between the girls and their Father she noted that the visits went well.

Once, M. lied about whether she had lunch before the visit. The father used it as a teaching moment. He told her that it’s good to be nice to people and they will be nice to you. He also told her that “you shouldn’t lie”. [ 195 ] When questioned about the visits being short and artificial her comment was that the system is not perfect. I find she did her best to make the visits as positive as possible for all concerned. I accept her evidence as very credible, helpful and an accurate reflection of what she observed and I share her concerns.

Teri-Ann McDonald [ 196 ] Ms. Macdonald has supervised visits with the Mother and her children since January 2015. She appeared to have a very good relationship with the Mother. She testified that the Mother worked hard to get the visits in her home and that is where she supervised most of the visits. [ 197 ] Ms. MacDonald in February 2015 arrived early to The Mother’s home and saw someone who looked like the Father leaving. He was greeted by another person by his name (father’s name).

On another visit the same month when the paternal grandmother was present with her other 3 grandchildren, one of the children, Ma., gave the Mother a craft to give to her Daddy. (This was during a time that the parents denied spending time together.) There was an awkward silence and then the paternal grandmother told Ma. that her Father didn’t live with the Mother. Subsequently the Father in his evidence confirmed that he had been seeing the Mother during this time. [ 198 ] She said that the Mother confided in her that on April 23, 2015, there had been conflict at the home of the paternal grandmother, C.B.

The Mother told her that she had been asked by C.B. to come to her home and help with the girls’ hair and she stayed overnight. In the morning C.B. accused her of taking money. She said that the Father came out of a room and had a baseball bat and bear mace. She also said that he hit her mother’s car and tried to spray her with bear mace. Ms. MacDonald told the Mother that she should consider how violent the Father can be.

She was obviously concerned about the Mother and wanted to help her. [ 199 ] At this time in the evidence the Father started commenting in an angry voice from the body of the courtroom, this confirmed again that he has a difficult time controlling his emotions and frustration. [ 200 ] I found Ms. Macdonald to be a credible, thoughtful and balanced witness. It is clear that she cared for the Mother and children but was concerned about the safety of all of them too. Laura Crowe, supervised access worker [ 201 ] Ms. Crowe is a supervised access worker who has supervised the Mother’s access since January 2015.

The visits are held in the Mother’s home and in the park. [ 202 ] She described positive visits between the children and her Mother. She described some concerns, in particular when the Mother appeared to be falling asleep during the access. She suggested that the Mother have different activities other than a movie and the Mother followed her suggestion. She described affection between the children and their Mother and she added that the Mother shows affection differently than constant hugs. She noticed that the Mother was not using physical affection and she told her about a pamphlet called “Choose to Hug’.

On the next access visit the Mother did greet the children with hugs. [ 203 ] She testified that the Mother rarely cancels a visit and she will follow her direction. The Mother was able to redirect M. when M. asked if she could have a sleep over at her Mother’s home. She testified that the visits end well. She described M. giving her volunteer driver a hug when the visit ends. [ 204 ] She describes the children are very active and rambunctious.

She testified that the girls get along alright although sometimes they fight over a toy, or their Mother’s attention. [ 205 ] She describes some challenges that the Mother faced such as enforcing time outs with the children. She said the Mother will continue to banter with the children after she has given a time out. The worker has to remind her not to engage with them. She says that sometimes the Mother becomes frustrated with a craft or electronics.

She says that the maternal grandmother is a help when she comes to a visit but she has physical limitations because of her health. [ 206 ] I accept the workers’ evidence as a truthful recollection of the Mother’s supervised access. EVIDENCE OF M.’S COUNSELLOR, DR. JULIE GOWTHORPE [ 207 ] Dr. Gowthorpe was retained by the Society in July 2014. She testified that she was retained to assist M. in transitioning between the two foster homes. She understood that M. had difficulties in transitions, including going to school. She was also retained to help M. with her emotional regulation. Dr.

Gowthorpe prepared two reports for the Society, dated December 10, 2014 and April 18, 2015, that were filed on consent of the parties and she testified at the trial. (Dr. Gowthorpe sees M. once or twice a month). [ 208 ] Dr. Gowthorpe has a PhD in social work and is an experienced social worker. She has testified before in this court. I accepted that she could provide expert testimony concerning relationships and parenting issues. She also provided evidence about the effect on M. of having to testify at this trial. I found Dr.

Gowthorpe to be a skilled, sensible and capable counsellor or play therapist for M. [ 209 ] In her report of December 10, 2014, Dr. Gowthorpe indicated that M. was always excited and engaged in the therapy sessions. She said that initially M. had difficulty in using words to identify her feelings. Instead her response to stress and frustration was to find a physical release (throwing objects, slapping) Dr. Gowthorpe worked to help M. regulate her emotions by helping with self-soothing strategies (which the foster parents could utilize) and play therapy. Dr.

Gowthorpe wrote that, “ M. is in the process of building security through stability in the primary areas of her life (school, home). It is essential that uncertainties (where will I be living in the long-term) are not highlighted as things that she needs to worry about. M needs to be shielded from adult issues if she is to focus on childhood experiences that lend to healthy development.” [ 210 ] Dr. Gowthorpe wrote and testified that M. told her that her Mother had told her to tell Karin (Kranenburg) that she wanted to live with her Mother. However she told Dr.

Gowthorpe that she wanted to live with her foster parents. [ 211 ] In her testimony Dr. Gowthorpe indicated that M also told her that her Mother told her to say that she had told a lie (about the allegations concerning her Father). When asked how she felt about that she replied “that tips my bucket! ” Apparently at school M. is

learning how to deal with her emotions. She is taught that sometimes you are dealing with a lot of things, they go in your bucket, sometimes it’s too much for you to handle and the bucket is tipped. Dr. Gowthorpe testified that M. loves her Mother very much and this statement in her opinion was not meant as a negative thing. [ 212 ] In M.’s play therapy, which consists in part of drawing, it appeared that she believes that her grandmother lives with her Mother. She also believed that she is returning home to her Mother. [ 213 ] When questioned in the voir dire about M.’s statements to her she confirmed that they discussed the difference between the truth and a lie. She also

[…]