2017 ONSC 7427, 2017 ONSC 7427

CITATION : Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. A.G-L., 2017 ONSC 7427 KINGSTON COURT FILE NO.: 113/16 DATE: 20171212 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT BETWEE N: ) ) Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (Society) ) ) ) Deborah H. Souder, for the Applicant Applicant ) ) - and - ) ) A.G-L. (mother) ) ) Stephen L. Zap, for the Respondent A.G-L.

D.C. (father) ) ) ) D.C. noted in default Lesley Kendall, appearing for foster parents Respondents ) ) ) Heard: November 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 27, 2017 Robertson J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT To preserve the child’s privacy, I will call this child Susan, which is not her real name. Issues for Determination [ 1 ] Is it in Susan’s best interests to live with her mother or become a Crown ward? Can I craft a supervision order with the support of the community so 20-month-old Susan can be safely raised by her loving mother? What about access if she cannot go home from foster care?

RESULT [ 2 ] I find Susan, born […], 2016, continues to be a child in need of protection pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act, s. 37(2)(b)(

i) and 37(2)(

g) and shall be made a ward of the Crown without access, for purpose of adoption. BACKGROUND [ 3 ] Susan was apprehended at birth and placed in a foster home with a view to permanency. She is a happy, healthy toddler meeting her developmental milestones. The Society seeks an Order for Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption. The 28-year-old mother asks the Court to return her daughter to her full-time care and custody under a Supervision Order. She did not propose terms of an

order. The father was noted in default, quit access some time ago, did not appear at trial and told the assessor he was not ready to parent a child. He is several years younger than the mother. This is the first child for each of the parents. [ 4 ] After a contested

summary judgment motion, the Honourable Justice A. Trousdale found Susan to be a child in need of protection pursuant to pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act s. 37(2)(b)(

i) and 37(2)(g). She was satisfied there were serious protection concerns including a history of domestic violence, anger management difficulties, the mother’s intellectual delays and the father’s mental health issues. This trial is to determine the appropriate disposition for 20 month old Susan based only on her best interests. [ 5 ] Justice Trousdale ordered this trial to determine five issues:

(1) What steps has the mother taken to deal with the Society’s protection concerns and what has been the effectiveness of those steps?

(2) Does the mother have the intellectual capacity to parent this child with appropriate assistance?

(3) What is the extent and nature of the assistance that would be required to allow the mother to parent the child, if it were possible?

(4) Has the Society satisfied its obligation to assist the child and the mother prior to seeking the most disruptive course of action in requesting that the child be made a Crown Ward?

(5) What order pursuant to s. 57(1) of the Child and Family Services Act is in the best interests of the child? [ 6 ] As of November 28, 2017, Susan has been in the care of the Society for 629 days, far exceeding the time limit even with the extension available under sections 70(1)(

a) and 70(4) of the Act . The disposition options at trial are: (

a) return Susan to her mother’s care, with or without supervision terms [s. 57(1)1], or (

b) make Susan a Crown ward [s.57(1)3]. If she becomes a Crown ward, is an access order in her best interests pursuant to section 58(1)(

a) based on the test set out in section 58(2.1). [ 7 ] The trial proceeded over six full days with twenty witnesses, a comprehensive court ordered Family Court Clinic assessment, several volumes of documents, historical records, medical reports, business records, photographs and other evidence tendered on consent of the parties. A trial scheduling meeting set the litigation

schedule for trial. The lawyers were prepared, cooperative and followed the schedule. The parties were well represented at the trial. The mother was always respectful to me and behaved appropriately during the hearing, subject to a few minor prompts from her lawyer, which she heeded. [ 8 ] The burden of proof on the disposition rests upon the Applicant Society. If Crown wardship is ordered, a rebuttable presumption against the issue of access shifts the burden of proof to the mother.

The standard of proof is balance of probabilities throughout. [ 9 ] The Society’s involvement with the parents began in November, 2015 as a result of a referral from the Victim Witness Program. The pregnant mother was a victim of domestic violence by the father. She resisted help from police and paramedics, appeared to be vulnerable and minimized the abuse. [ 10 ] The Society attempted pregnancy planning. After little co-operation from the parents, the Society advised the parents their child would be apprehended at birth unless they had a viable kin placement in place by the birth of the child.

The mother rejected help and said she would do it on her own. The parents remained together as a couple until early May, 2016. [ 11 ] Despite many life challenges, the mother has many accomplishments which I have taken into account. • She faithfully attended twenty months of supervised access with Susan. Their relationship is mostly positive. She planned and brought snacks. She often brought appropriate toys, a blanket or small activities. • Sometimes she brought relatives or community workers to visits. • The mother is an excellent money manager with her meager resources. She can price shop and budget.

The records show she had past financial woes. This is a big accomplishment. • She lives independently. She found safe, affordable housing. It is spotlessly clean by all accounts. She has equipped her home with the necessary items for Susan. She lives near parks and a recreation center. • She knows bus routes. • She attends access and appointments on time. She is organized and has calendar to help her with scheduling. • She has a doctor for herself who would care for her child. • She frequents the public library. The librarians help her research issues on the internet when required.

For example, she researched available parenting courses. • She completed her high school diploma proving great commitment. I was impressed by her persistence. She obtained a food handling certificate. She got a job briefly at a pizzeria. The job ended when she disagreed with the owner about his standards of cleanliness. She applied for job at Movie Theater. • She took first aid courses.

• She took cooking classes, and participated in the good food box program. • She took emotional management classes, various workshops and courses within the community, many that she organized herself, through Better Beginnings or her dual diagnosis outreach worker. • She has permanently separated from the baby’s father.

She has no new relationship of concern. • If Susan is returned to her, she states she will only allow the father to have supervised access through the Salvation Army. • She plans to enroll her child in appropriate activities when she is older and wants her to do well in school. • She has no drug or alcohol dependency issues. [ 12 ] Despite these life skills and gains, I find she has failed to meet many basic child care functions, both tangible and intangible. She often misreads the cues of her child. [ 13 ] The mother failed to demonstrate an ability to put the child’s needs before her own wants.

For example, when the child was distressed with the 30 minute car travel time from the foster home to the access location, the Society decided to move the access location closer to the child. This would benefit both mother and child because the child would not be distraught upon arrival. The Society appropriately problem solved a variety of the mother’s insecurities including potential contact with the father, an earlier wake up time and even where she would get her morning hot chocolate. The Society arranged a volunteer driver for her.

The mother was angry, initially refusing to go complaining the Society was using the child’s needs against her. She left the following message for social worker Laura Ross: “… you guys don’t care about my interests, it’s always about Susan.” [ 14 ] The mother demonstrates unrealistic expectations in relation to Susan’s age and developmental stage. She is easily frustrated then uses a strict voice, inappropriate to the situation.

When Susan referred to the foster parents as mama or dada, the mother corrected her sternly, even when workers explained that the baby was exhibiting normal language skills and not personalizing a choice. When the child would not burp, she sternly said: “I am the boss, not you!” While changing Susan’s clothes, the child was wiggling. The mother held Susan’s face in front of her and said “You are cranky” in a loud firm voice causing the child to cry. The mother did not console her. At age seven months, the mother complained about Susan’s “attitude” because she was “a ginger”.

In October, 2016, when the child was crying for her comfort doll which she referred to as her baby, the mother refused to give it to her because it came from the foster home. The child was unnecessarily distressed. During her evidence, the mother admitted speaking in harsh tones to the child. She testified “I am used to stern voiced because I lived in the country”. She admitted Susan was scared by her voice so she kissed her and said sorry. Her authoritarian pitch problems continued in the visits. [ 15 ] She inconsistently soothed or responded to her when needed.

For example, at the end of a visit, Susan reached out to her mother and said I love you. The mother failed to acknowledge this and ignored the child. [ 16 ] She believed her daughter, by extension, would have the same likes, dislikes and allergies she has. Because the mother had difficulty with a brand of soap, she insisted that the child would have it. Because the mother enjoyed dill pickles during her pregnancy, she concluded the child at seven months should suck on dill pickle mini rice cakes even when directed not to do so.

When told not to feed the child cookies, she glared at the worker, ate the cookies in front of the child, telling the child “Oh, I can’t give you these”. She expected the child would understand the dynamics. She was argumentative at times and refused to accept she was wrong. For instance, she claimed Susan was gluten intolerant but could eat banana wheat Pablum. She disputed there was gluten in wheat. The child is not gluten sensitive. [ 17 ] She admitted in her evidence that when the child would reach out and stroke her face, she removed Susan’s hand because she did not like to be touched.

When workers explained this was the child’s way of exploring and connecting with her, she was unyielding in her approach. [ 18 ] At times, the mother is unable to control her emotions or manage conflict in the presence of the child, causing stress for the child. For instance, the mother had an opportunity to participate in a semi-supervised program through the Ontario Early Years Program. While things initially went well, the mother became upset and angry when she saw a dirty change table in the washroom. She became loud and difficult with the school secretary. As a result she was excluded from that program.

This meant she had less freedom with Susan during visits. During another access program, she got into an argument with another parent regarding the parent’s hygiene and parenting style. She was unable to curb her anger for the benefit of her daughter. [ 19 ] The mother was often frustrated and antagonistic with community systems. When given a voucher to obtain furniture from the local Salvation Army Store, she refused to adhere to their selection process.

She was abusive to the Salvation Army staff who said she used bad language describing her as aggressive and almost violent. [ 20 ] She complained that the child watched television at the foster home yet exposed her to loud music and videos on her phone. [ 21 ] The mother refuses to work with the Society’s workers and is often aggressive to them. The mother claimed CAS workers were mean, threatened her, swore at her, and that a volunteer driver pinched Susan and screamed at the mother. No witnesses corroborated her allegations.

Her answer and her evidence complain she was disrespected by workers who came to her apartment and failed to remove their shoes. The mother concluded this to be poor manners. There was no evidence she asked them, or they refused to remove their shoes. The Society changed workers more than once because of the mother’s dissatisfaction. She is a hard to serve client. None of the community or personal supports she brought to visits or meetings corroborated her claims that workers belittled, demeaned her or called her names. I find her allegations of poor professionalism to be entirely without merit.

The Society has an obligation to treat clients fairly with dignity. I find the Society has met this obligation. They are not obligated to take abuse. [ 22 ] The mother contacted some community programs and supports on her own. There was minimal detail about the length or content, her success or her capacity to incorporate the course material into her parenting. She refused to share important information with the

Society about even small things like her address or bigger things that would be to her benefit such as completion of community programs to improve her parenting or manage her behavior. These were programs the Society would approve of that would help her convince the Society of her ability to work with professionals and gain skills. She would not sign consent forms to release information. [ 23 ] She complained the workers did not attend at her home. Mr. Dockrill, CAS social worker, testified he could not attend her home for a visit because she refused to give him the address.

She claimed it was none of his business. The Society did not have concerns about her home cleanliness. The mother later asked the Society to visit her home but she advised her worker she wanted to have a neutral support person attend at any meetings. The worker agreed. It never got organized and the blame is mutual. I find the Society did not refuse to attend. This might have been an opportunity to open some dialogue in a forum of her choice. Ms.

Ouderkirk of the Métis Better Beginnings stated her belief that the crux of the mother’s issues demanding changes to diaper and soap brands, hair elastics, her dislike of the color pink etc. might have been small ways of her feeling some control. She might be right. Regrettably, there is no evidence anyone ever just asked the foster parents to switch brands. [ 24 ] The mother has a serious history of pet neglect. The local SPCA banned her from adopting a further dog after her own dog became so ill that it was euthanized. The mother had been unable to recognize that the dog was sick or had stopped eating.

On another occasion, during a prior relationship, a citizen reported her poor treatment of a dog on a walk and an investigation ensued. At that time, she was living in the home of a boyfriend whose mother bred dogs. Those premises were described as unsuitable due to dog urine and feces. She unreasonably attributes intelligence and emotions to pets. Ms. Mills-Rogers described how the mother believed her cat understood her.

During the trial she volunteered that although her dog was euthanized it had really respected her. [ 25 ] The mother indicated to the CAS she did not require assistance with respect to parenting. Her evidence is that she babysat her step siblings and other people’s children. She was unable to remember the names of children that she had recently babysat. [ 26 ] The mother has no significant personal or family support that could offer her the level of assistance that she requires. The documentary evidence details her childhood involvement with the Society.

She minimized or said she forgot her own neglectful and abusive childhood. I am unsure if she really did not remember or if she was being protective of her parents. Her father rarely sees her and offers no support from an objective standpoint. The mother said she has seen him four times since Susan’s birth because he is busy. Her plan includes him as back up babysitter for Susan. He was on her witness list. He failed to show up to trial although several chances were given to accommodate his convenience. She looked genuinely surprised and sad each time he missed court. I find he is unreliable.

He would not offer sufficient protection for the child to be returned to the mother. He was not considered by the assessor as a collateral contact because the mother refused to sign a consent for the clinic to speak with her family members. [ 27 ] She declined additional access time offered by the Society because of her own unavailability. She had been involved in a couple of other programs so gave up the chance to have extra time with Susan.

The Better Beginning workers described her as overwhelmed at times if she had too many things to do on one day. [ 28 ] The mother has been unable to maintain relationships with community service providers to supplement her deficits. Mary Jane Mills-Rogers of the Dual Diagnosis Consultation Outreach Team from Providence Care Manor helps people suffering from both an intellectual disability and a behavioral or mental health issue. The usual client contact is about 18 months but the she has continued to work with this mother since 2009. She appeared only in response to a summons.

She is soft spoken, supportive, kind and accepting of the mother. She really cares about the mother. It was grueling for her to testify and she was reluctant to be critical. The mother has now ended their relationship. [ 29 ] Ms. Mills-Rogers had many good things to say about the mother’s hard work and positive changes over the years such as her academic achievements and money management gains. [ 30 ] When questioned, she disclosed ongoing themes of the mother’s poor management of relationships and difficulty placing others needs above her own.

She said the mother often misreads, mishears, and misinterprets what others say which leads to conflict. She said the mother had experienced great criticism as a child and is very self-defensive and protective, thus making relationships difficult. Ms. Mills-Rogers was cross-examined and confirmed many examples of the mother’s worrisome emotional regulation, anger issues, and a history of pet neglect. Her notes were detailed. She chronicled years of help and guidance.

When asked about a previous relationship of the mother, the worker confirmed that in 2011 she told the mother that without supports, the Society might take her child. [ 31 ] Ms. Mills-Rogers emphasized that the mother would need great support to parent a child. She would need to be in a home with two capable and experienced parents modelling.

She was worried about the mother’s cognitive functioning but also about the impact of her impulse and emotional control on a child. [ 32 ] The Society appropriately identified concern that the mother was unable to connect and follow through with professional and informal supports, presumably family and friends. Prior to the trial, the mother withdrew from her positive supports including the dual- diagnosis worker. Early on in the proceedings she had a supportive aunt and cousin but has since disconnected from them.

The mother declined to accept an adult protective services worker despite several recommendations to get this help. [ 33 ] Unfortunately, the mother’s inventory of appropriate friends and family resources is limited. She resisted describing her family constellation in court and to the assessor yet the historical records demonstrate a tumultuous childhood. None of her family testified on her behalf. She had two supportive witnesses. Her witness list included a woman named Dyan who she met at the Society. She did not know the woman’s last name.

Dyan did not appear to testify. [ 34 ] C.K. is a friend of the mother and witness on her behalf. Her own life story included overcoming drug addiction and parenting issues. She had a positive experience with the Society and has now gotten her own life on track, retrained and obtained employment. Her adult son was about to move in with her. [ 35 ] I found her to be honest but she had little contact with the mother given her own busy

schedule and shift work. She needed to be home regularly to care for her dog. She had never been to the mother’s home although she sincerely offered to go and check on her if Susan was returned. I find she would not have the time or skills required to protect the child in the long term. She encouraged the mother

to work with the Society. [ 36 ] Mr. Lorne Kruz is a 63 year old taxi driver who befriended the mother. He could not recall how they met. His relationship with her is casual. He helped her to child proof her home and I accept his corroborating evidence of her clean household. He described the mother as set in her ways and stubborn. He offered his support. He testified he helped raise 7 children. He stated he will give her rides. He stated he works 10 hours a day, 7 days per week. His availability is questionable. [ 37 ] It was not clear how well he knew her.

For instance, he said the mother was allergic to strawberries. The mother’s evidence contradicts this saying strawberries are a favourite food of Susan. He observed the mother caring for other children on brief occasions at a park while in the course of his driving duties. I am unsatisfied that his evidence assists much. The children were of a different age than Susan. The mother was unable to even tell the court the names of the children. Although not asked, he volunteered that he “does not understand how the CAS can walk into an apartment and take kids for no reason at all and get a police officer to do it”.

This was in no way connected to the facts of the present case. Mr. Kruz had a bad relationship with a child protection agency in another province and had operated an advocacy group in that province for other parents. He disbanded his organization in 2001. He testified he saw a social worker being short and demanding with the mother”. He also testified he “tried to get the mother upset” to see her reaction. I have no idea how this would be helpful to her. Mr.

Kruz also testified he encouraged the mother to work with the CAS. [ 38 ] The mother had a good working relationship with Michelle Walker of Better Beginnings and Joie Ouderkirk from the Métis Nation Healthy Babies Program. Both were very experienced family support workers with young parents and familiar with parenting programs in the community. Both were accepting, non-judgmental and had worked very hard to maintain a relationship with this mother, offering her ideas about parenting techniques and healthy mother/child relationships.

They also advocated for her with the CAS and attempted to promote her position in good ways. Both had personally observed visits between the mother and Susan and also attended various CAS meetings. They heard Society workers provide positive feedback to the mother and neither heard workers insult or demean the mother. They described the mother as easily distracted and hard to keep focused on task. Michelle Walker noted CAS tried to accommodate additional access for the mother and child but the mother was not available and did not want morning visits. The mother wanted in home visits.

The last personal contact between the mother and Michelle Walker was June 14, 2017 by the mother’s choice. [ 39 ] The mother exhibited very poor decision making and bad judgment by posting naked pictures of Susan on Facebook. The mother wanted to prove that the child had a diaper rash. Despite a protracted discussion with the Society over the brand of laundry soap used by the foster parent and whether or not there was a diaper rash on the child, the mother chose to secretly take photos of her child’s vagina during a visit.

The Society had no reason to worry about such improper behavior so diaper changes were not monitored at the time. The mother posted the photos on a public Facebook site that alleges crimes by foster parents. A member of that group informed the Society about the pictures. The Society told the mother to take the pictures down. She complied. She was unable to appreciate the risk of harm to her child in posting those pictures. Police investigated her actions but no charges were laid. At trial, the mother was remorseful and accepted responsibility for her poor judgment.

At the time however, the mother’s response was a further Facebook post to the group: “I don’t like snitches that rat me out on here and can’t say it to my faces”. FINDINGS [ 40 ] In determining which disposition is in Susan’s best interests, I reviewed the evidence under each factor of CFSA s. 37(3). I recognize s. 37(3) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors. [ 41 ] I find no supervision order could adequately manage the risks for Susan to be safely parented by the mother.

I considered the many life skills and efforts made by the mother, her kin and kith, the Society, and community agencies to help her before and since intervention (s. 57(2)), her progress, and available help going forward. I find the Society provided prenatal guidance, and referred her to other services before intervening through legal action. I find the Society made efforts to assist the mother and connect her with services well in advance of the birth of the child. The mother accessed many services herself.

Some of their efforts include: Referral to the housing help center which she declined, two enhanced support social services workers, two family group conferences, switching social workers twice to address her dissatisfaction, Changing Minds Intensive Transitional Treatment Program at Kingston General Hospital, help from her family physician, Dr.

DuBois, Parenting group through Better Beginnings, a personalized parenting course, K3C Counselling, Ontario Early Years program, Bounce Back and Thrive program, KEYS, S. 54 Assessment through the Family Court Clinic, Powerful emotions course, Providence Care Group, anger management program, PAR Program, plenty of good help from the Métis Nation, ongoing commitment from her Dual Diagnosis worker, offers for an adult services protective worker, Victim Witness program. [ 42 ] I find the mother loves Susan, has attended access faithfully, and has participated in some programs and services.

I find Susan enjoys most of the visits. I find the mother has been very resourceful, explored the community services she would accept but has not been able to execute a feasible plan incorporating those services into her parenting that will keep Susan safe. She failed to accept or follow important advice, strategies, tools and recommendations of professionals.

She was not receptive to feedback if she disagreed with it although some witnesses were of the view that the mother did not understand it all. [ 43 ] She has demonstrated a pattern of poor decision making for Susan, lacks judgment to make correct choices and will not heed good advice to change. For instance, enhanced social services worker Joleen Castell testified that on a hot day, the mother chose to put a sweater on Susan because she did not like sunscreen. She described the mother as angry, demanding and scowling, stomping in the hallway and speaking in a rigid and firm voice.

She got angry and threw stuffed animals at another worker. [ 44 ] I find the mother has functional impairments and a history of anger management issues. I find the mother has a limited capacity to learn, retain or apply crucial parenting skills in the short term or long term. This would make a very insecure childhood for Susan. I do not find it necessary for me to determine the cause or label the nature of her deficiencies as cognitive, social, emotional or psychological.

The substantial training, community resources and supports provided to date have not been effective in helping her to develop essential childrearing skills allowing her to safely parent Susan. Her lack of engagement with available services, even those of her own choice and her limited ability to translate what she did learn into everyday tasks highlight her inability to understand the

significance of the parenting skills required to safely care for Susan. The mother told authorities her baby was apprehended because shedid not have a driver’s license and failed to take vitamins. That is not true. [45] She was unable to see that Susan needs required her to co-operate with service providers. Ms. Mills-Rogers discussed this withher years ago. There is no evidence of any other service or program available to supplement the mother’s skills on a long term basisraise to Susan.

I find she cannot or will not be coached in the foreseeable future to provide a safe, responsive, nurturing environment forSusan. [46] I find the assistance provided by the Society to the child and to the mother in working towards the possibility of the motherparenting the child was sufficient to discharge their duties. Many of the barriers to the return of the child relate to the mother’s poorworking relationships. Her lack of emotional regulation and trouble reading appropriate cues of Susan coupled with her dismissiveapproach to service providers who could guide her are a dangerous combination for a child.

She chose to disengage from or dismiss keycommunity resources. For example, in the months preceding trial, she reduced contact with her own professional supports such as herDual Diagnosis worker or the Métis Nation Better Beginnings worker. [47] I am satisfied there is no community or kin placement available under section 57(4) of the Act. [48] The importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity is an enumerated factor in determining best interests (s. 37(4)). Themother self-identified with the Métis Nation and approached them for help to address her heritage.

Previous orders determined Susandoes not have status. The record confirms the Society looked into the mother’s assertions of Métis background without success.Elsewhere in the evidence, a different culture background was suggested by the mother. It remains unclear. The Métis Nation BetterBeginnings’ worker gladly supported the mother, whether she had a cultural connection or not. The evidence at trial suggests the motherfailed to follow through to locate some documents. The historical CAS file relating to the mother from her own childhood did not, fromwhat was tendered, identify any Métis connection.

If any evidence comes forward even after the trial to show a connection, the Societywill inform the foster parents so they can promote this awareness for Susan. Whether heritage or not, I am mindful that Susan’s culturecould be effected. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL [49] The father alleged to authorities the mother used his behavior control medication during her pregnancy. The Society is notalleging drug abuse by her but it is important to the mother that I address this issue. His accusation is unsubstantiated. He was in anadverse relationship with her at the time. I find his allegation is unreliable.

Some records describe the mother saying that her disabilitywas caused by her own mother using crystal meth during her pregnancy. I believed the mother’s evidence that she did not take drugsduring her pregnancy for Susan. She would not even take vitamins. I find that the mother did not abuse alcohol or drugs during herpregnancy. Law [50] The Child and Family Services Act, (CFSA) outlines a legislative path of requirements before the State permanently removes achild from the care of a parent. The legal test is not to craft an Order to maximize this child’s potential in a perfect world.

Balancing themerits of the Society’s plan for adoption with the mother’s plan to return her child is more than just determining who offers more. The dominant focus of the CFSA is the protection and well-being of children.[1] Some parents need long-term help caring for their children.There is no statutory time limit on needing help. The statutory time limits relate only to duration in foster care.

The law directs the Courtto make the least restrictive Order consistent with the child’s best interests and to support the autonomy and integrity of the family unit.This can include a result whereby future help is anticipated. The village can supplement but not substitute parenting skills. [51] In determining Susan’s best interests, the Court must assess the degree to which the risk concerns which existed at the time of theprotection Application still exist today. The risks must be examined from the child’s perspective. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v.C.M., (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165.

That is one reason why pleadings are important. [52] The mother’s answer attaches an eight page document handwritten by the mother outlining her sadness at the apprehension, andher love, her hopes and plans for Susan in the context of tasks. Her pleadings gloss over a plan of care. I do not criticize it for what itsays but rather for its lack of a plan to address the protection concerns.

She does not realistically address her child’s needs, her ability toidentify and meet those needs or her future commitment to community resources: “I known how to change dirty dippers and making sure my daughter Susan is taking good cared when I see her at each one hour visits. And I known it’s hard on me as a single loving caring mom. And I carried my own daughter Susan for nine months and it’s way harderon me not having a caring loving chance to be a mother to bring her home. Plus I didn’t have much time with my own daughter Susan inthe hospital at KGH. I had to say goodbye around 1 pm.

Plus I couldn’t stop crying all day and night when I gotten home from thehospital at KGH.” “And I am going to take another parenting course with my own cousin Alicia or take a course all on my own also too”… “Also I am going to get help at K3C for a women program to work on helping me to be a way better person and for me to be betterperson for me to be a caring thoughtful mother for my daughter Susan and that’s my caring loving support in my own life”… “I would like to know why is everyone so against me being a single caring mother that’s on ODSP.

And there’s lots of people that areon OW & ODSP that have kids of there own. And they are in there own care also too”. [53] The balance of her pleadings addressed tasks such as a plan to take her to a beach, camping, biking, rollerblading, to play dress-up, to take her out on Halloween, help her with homework, arts and crafts, personal hygiene, hair care, and her commitment to give thechild a cell phone when she is old enough. She committed to putting some ground rules down for her daughter that she understands. [54] The pleadings reiterated the mother’s sense of loss since the apprehension.

The pleadings concluded with “I would like to show

and teacher my own daughter Susan how to put her own shoes on the right feet and also to tie her own shoes when she’s older enoughalso too.” [55] I find that the mother has the good intentions she pleaded. She loves her child and does not intend to harm her. Good intentionsare not enough. There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that she is able to parent the child without endangering hersafety. The law is clear. There to be no experimentation with a child’s life with the result that in giving a parent another chance, the childwould have one less chance.

Children’s Aid Society of Winnipeg (City) v. R. (1980), (MB CA), 19 R.F.L. (2d) 232(Man.C.A.); Children’s Aid Society of Brockville, Leeds and Grenville v. C., [2001] 2001CarswellOnt 1504. [56] Cognitive deficient parents can be caring, competent parents. The Society contends this mother’s ability to learn and applyparenting skills is too impaired to adequately care for Susan. The mother acknowledges that she has a learning disability but disputes thatthis would prevent her from raising the child.

It is well settled law that low parental intelligence should not be taken as determinative initself of parent capacity. Instead, it is important to determine whether, in light of the individual capabilities, if the parent can meet theresponsibilities. If not, then given the proper assistance and intervention, can parents be provided with the tools necessary to adequatelycare for their child, Children’s Aid Society of Kingston v. F.R. (1975), (ON CJ), 23 R.F.L. 391 (Ont. Prov. Ct. – F.D.).

The evidence of the witnesses, community resources, Family Court Clinic report, and especially the mother’s own testimony raiseserious protection concerns for Susan’s future given the mother’s intellectual delays. [57] Both psychologist Robert Rowe and assessor David Spendlove testified in a straight forward and compassionate way. Therewere no concerns about their credentials, expertise or methodology. I found them both to be credible witnesses. Dr. Rowe administeredtesting.

He described the mother having an IQ of 53 but volunteered that the results must be considered with other sources of data such asinterviews and collateral sources. He said she may have underperformed on the testing due to her extreme distraction and apprehensionabout the assessment, although her true cognitive scores still warranted concern.

He saw the mother as highly motivated to parent, butfrustrated, suffering from poor reasoning, poor working memory and cognitive impairment. [58] The Crown wardship recommendation of the assessment was generated after 30 hours of interviews, testing, observations andcollateral contacts. She was generally short changed in life with few good role models and now has little contact with her family. Herparents were partiers. Her mother is currently in prison. CAS historical records revealed this mother was physically and emotionallyabused as a child by her parents and a stepfather.

Essentially, the adults in her life failed her. As an adult, the mother is a victim ofdomestic violence at the hands of three of her previous partners. She attended the Partner Assault Response Program with Susan’s fatherto address her own anger and emotional regulation issues and to understand his problems. There is little evidence of any benefit shegleaned from the content. For example her anger outburst at the Society occurred after she participated in this management group. [59] Mr.

Spendlove states that the mother lacks insight about her problems and suggested she may be in denial because she has sucha strong desire to feel involved and parent her child. During a visit, he observed the mother resisting advice from society workersbecause she said she was capable of doing everything on her own. Mr. Spendlove noted she did not want to discuss issues or getfeedback that the Society worker tried to give her. He testified that when he went to an in home visit, the mother appeared to be talkingto someone named Kathy but there was no one there. He was concerned she was hallucinating.

In her testimony, the mother explainedshe was speaking to a tenant in another apartment but Mr. Spendlove noted there was no noise coming from anywhere. He found herbehaviour worrisome and was concerned about her stability. [60] Mr. Spendlove was concerned about her ability to maintain long term healthy relationships. He said she had trouble trustingpeople and cannot recognize when people are trying to help her, even in small ways. For example, at a meeting on a hot day he wasconcerned about a bottle she prepared earlier.

She declined the fresh bottle sent by the foster parent because she objected to the pinkcolor of the bottle and preferred to give Susan the possibly soured formula. He intervened. [61] He was also concerned for her future relationships. She has shown a pattern of bad choices in picking men. Despite this pattern,she refused to attend counselling through a shelter. She resisted efforts by police and paramedics to help her after she was assaulted.

Thefather was convicted of crimes against her and sentenced, yet even after suffering this violence, while pregnant, she reunited with him assoon as she was legally able to do so. Her own pleadings acknowledge the need for counselling. The KC3 worker reported she found itdifficult to focus, was easily distracted and is vulnerable. [62] Mr. Spendlove also reviewed the opportunity to have an adult services protective worker. She told the assessor and latertestified in court that the dual diagnosis worker had not really helped her in the past. He encouraged her to undertake the counselling sheidentified at KC3.

She did not produce any evidence at trial that she benefited from this. [63] The CAS is the agency with the mandate to protect children. While other agencies offer services that may be compatible, thoseservices are often offered from the perspective of the parent, not the child. As Susan grows and exerts her independence, the motherwould need a realistic response strategy to meet her intangible and ever changing needs. She has been increasingly confrontational andunwilling to follow advice of Society workers.

A good working relationship with the Society workers and other service providers wouldbe crucial. [64] The mother’s counsel referred me to Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.H., (ON SC) where achild of similar age was returned to a mother under comprehensive terms of supervision. [65] I agree with the

summary of law set out in that case but I distinguish it on the facts. The case cited dealt with parents fighting toprevent their developmentally delayed daughter from becoming a Crown ward. The Court found in that case that the intellectuallylimited mother was cooperative, consistently open-minded, eager to learn, easy to work with, gained insight, followed through withrecommendations, changed parenting techniques as a result of community connection and was prepared to continue to do so.

At para301: … both parents are capable and very much inclined to seek out such help from any professionals or community agencies which may beavailable. Their understanding of the need to utilize community resources – combined with their proven ability to work cooperativelywith service providers, even in the face of personality conflicts – provides reassurance that they will show diligence in getting D.M. as

much help as may be available. [ 66 ] Though not provided by counsel, I note the same Judge later ordered the same child become a Crown ward later that same year in Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.H. (2008), CanLii 59556, 170 A.C.W.S. (3d) 785 . That case substantially related to the parents’ inability to provide stable housing and implement the terms of the supervision order he granted earlier. [ 67 ] The mother in the case before me has not embraced community help and advice in critical areas that could have improved her parenting flaws.

She lacks insight and often resists or rejects appropriate advice. Although she upgraded many of her skills and took some courses, she failed to benefit from her work or implement the strategies so as to enable her to safely parent Susan. The correlation between her low function and her failure to embrace community services to assist her result in a very high risk of harm and poor life outcome for Susan. [ 68 ] Three examples are: (

a) She refused to follow advice to take prenatal vitamins because she incorrectly believed they contained codeine. No amount of reassurance could convince her otherwise, even when a worker simplified the advice saying her the child might be developmentally challenged if she did not take the vitamins. (

b) She failed to follow through with a personalized parenting course prepared for her by her Enhanced Support Social worker. (

c) She often exhibited an inability to follow simple directions— Métis Nation Healthy Babies worker Joie Ouderkirk confirmed the mother held Susan tightly by putting her fingers around the baby’s neck when burping her instead of a safer position as modelled. She initially rejected diapering advice. An inordinate amount of time and resources was spent by a number of workers to assist her to properly master a diaper wiping technique. She chronically needed reminders. She insisted on changing Susan’s diaper at the start of every visit, even if it was dry.

At every visit, she changed Susan in and out of clothes she brought to the visit, even when Susan resisted. Sometimes this wardrobe change process took 1/3 of the visit time. ACCESS [ 69 ] Section 59(2.1) of the CFSA establishes a presumption against access when a child is made a Crown ward. The mother has the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that her relationship with child is beneficial and meaningful to Susan from the child's perspective and that access will not impair Susan’s future opportunities for adoption. There are positive aspects to the mother and child relationship.

The visits are consistent. The second criterion requires that the mother demonstrate that access will not impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption. Long term foster care is adverse to Susan’s interests and not a viable legislative option. No party pursued Crown wardship with access as a disposition in evidence or submissions. [ 70 ] Foster parents are not parties under the CFSA . They do not file their own pleadings. Their participation is statutorily mandated. Susan’s foster parents were represented by counsel, Ms. Lesley Kendall. The foster parents want to adopt Susan.

They acknowledged they have their own interest in the outcome. They love Susan. They have cared for her full time essentially since birth. They oppose access or contact between Susan and her mother. The foster parents are fearful of her. They worry contact would be disruptive for Susan and for their other children and family. They road tested a relationship with the mother having some contact at visits. Initially, the mother embraced them. Then, the mother became very hostile and could not explain appropriate reasons for her change of attitude.

In evidence, the mother described her dislike of their laundry detergent and brand of diapers. She testified she had given them clothes for Susan, the foster mom was appreciative but then they not used. When they were returned, there were extra clothing items that had not belonged to the mother. Despite cross examination, I could not understand the nature of her dispute with them. Plainly stated, it did not make sense. The mother admits her hostility. For example, at Christmas, the foster mother gave the mother a homemade card with Susan’s foot print and a $10 gift card at a coffee place she enjoys.

The mother responded with anger claiming she could not be bought off. [ 71 ] The mother made numerous unfounded complaints about Susan’s care in the foster home. The mother claimed the foster mother was trying to poison Susan. She chronically complained about rashes, allergies and the foster mother’s use of elastics for Susan’s hair. She claimed there were bald spots on the child. Society witnesses and the Better Beginnings workers who examined the child at the time of her complaints did not see a problematic rash or allergic reaction even when the mother was pointing it out.

On a couple of occasions, there was a bit of a rash. Ms. Ouderkirk, her support person corroborated to the mother it was not of a medical nature but rather something akin to a teething rash. In any event, the child was taken to the doctor. Susan’s doctor then met with the mother and told her that the soap [Ivory] and diapers [Pampers] were not problematic for Susan. She remains entrenched in her opinion. [ 72 ] When delivering Susan to the agency for a visit, the foster mother saw the mother across the parking lot and waved to the mother. The mother complained to the Society about the wave.

There was no suggestion there was anything bad about the wave. [ 73 ] Assessor Spendlove testified that the tension created in an adverse parent/foster parent relationship is harmful to a child. He and other witnesses testified about the difficult transition for Susan. The mother’s strong emotions created stress for Susan. [ 74 ] The mother testified she would never accept Crown wardship or support the adoption placement if Susan is not returned to her. The foster parents offer that if Susan wishes to pursue contact in the future and it is safe, they will facilitate it.

I find face to face contact between the mother and Susan would destabilize her adoption. Adoption with access is not a feasible selection in the legislation. I find Crown wardship with access would impair the child’s chance at adoption. Even if it is meaningful to Susan, it is not beneficial for her because the mother would undermine the stability of the placement. Credibility [ 75 ] Credibility is the function of truthfulness, reliability, accuracy and objectivity. I find that the bulk of the witnesses to be credible. There were few challenges in cross examination by counsel. I found the evidence of Dr.

Rowe, David Spendlove, Mary Jane Rogers- Mills, Joie Ouderkirk, and Michelle Walker to be very credible, objective and helpful. They are solid supports to the child and I was

impressed by their professional skills. [ 76 ] When assessing credibility, a judge looks at what the parent did and not just what they now say they will do. This helps determine reliability. I did not find the mother to be credible or reliable. Though she professed love she was not prepared to work with professionals who could help her for the benefit of Susan. Her high customer service expectations interfered with her vision to have the child returned.

On the evidence, I find the mother would not be willing or able to follow the advice and direction of the Society or adhere to the conditions under a supervision order, especially if she disagreed with it. She withdrew from her dual diagnosis worker when she learned she would testify even knowing it was by a summons. As more evidence of her bad judgment, she opposed her testimony even when the evidence was largely supportive of her efforts to improve her parenting.

At times in the mother’s evidence, her answers were simply disconnected from the questions and she seemed confused. [ 77 ] I find the merits of the Society’s plan for the child’s care far outweighs the mother’s plan. I find Crown wardship is the least restrictive order in the best interests of Susan. Disposition [ 78 ] Final order granted that the child, Susan, born […], 2016 continues to be a child in need of protection pursuant to subsections 37(2)(b)(

i) and 37(2)(

g) of the Child and Family Services Act and shall be made a ward of the Crown without access. Madam Justice C. Robertson Date: December 12, 2017 CITATION: Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. A.G-L., 2017 ONSC 7427 KINGSTON COURT FILE NO.: 113/16 DATE: 20171212

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEE N: Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Applicant - and - A.G-L. (mother) and D.C. (father) – noted in default Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Robertson J. Released: December 12, 2017 [1] Child and Family Services Act 1.

(1) The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children. Other purposes (2)The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well being of children, are: 1. To recognize that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.

2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered. 3.

To recognize that children’s services should be provided in a manner that, i. respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment, ii. takes into account physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children, iii. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests, and iv. includes the participation of a child, his or her parents and relatives and the members of the child’s extended family and community, where appropriate. 4.

To recognize that, wherever possible, services to children and their families should be provided in a manner that respects cultural, religious and regional differences. 5. To recognize that Indian and native people should be entitled to provide, wherever possible, their own child and family services, and that all services to Indian and native children and families should be provided in a manner that recognizes their culture, heritage and traditions and the concept of the extended family.