IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2016 SKPC 086 Date: June 16, 2016 Information: 106/15 Location: Canora IN THE MATTER OF HEARING UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF WBA, born October 6, 2015 Appearing: Donna Taylor For the Ministry of Social Services Deanna Harris For the parents The parents and child and relatives are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. DECISION AFTER HEARING R. GREEN, I. INTRODUCTION [1] WBA was born on October 6, 2015. His mother is CB, now 19 years of age, and his father is JA, now 16 years of age. [2] This infant was technically apprehended at birth by the Minister of Social Services, but the Minister did not proceed with the application, and CB was allowed to take the baby home with her. The reason the Minister whose staff had received maternity alert regarding CB from their Rosetown office did not proceed with the apprehension was that JA’s parents, TK and BA, agreed that one of them would always be present in the parents’ home to supervise their care of WBA. [3] The concerns expressed in the maternity alert from Rosetown were: 1. CB had diminished cognitive abilities, as she suffers from FASD, and as result she has challenges around understanding and retaining information, despite presenting as though this is not the case; 2. CB has history of being involved in physically abusive domestic relationship; 3. CB has other mental health concerns, including anxiety, depression and cluster personality traits; and 4. CB has addiction issues. [4] While the dates are not clear in the evidence, the young parents and their baby then lived in house in Canora for few weeks, with either grandmother TK or grandfather BA present with them. They then moved to grandfather BA’s farm, and essentially lived there with BA supervising them until November 23, 2015. [5] On that date, family support worker Debbie Lapitski went to the farm to get CB to take her to an appointment in Yorkton. When she arrived, JA was very angry and was yelling. He accused Ms. Lapitski of trying to help his mother (TK) get custody of WBA. JA remained angry and eventually locked both Ms. Lapitski and CB out of the house, where he remained alone with the baby. Ms. Lapitski called the Ministry of Social Services and the RCMP. While waiting outside, CB told Ms. Lapitski that JA and her had fight, JA shoved her into the washer and tried to strangle her, and she then kneed him between the legs. [6] Both the RCMP and child protection workers attended to the farm. WBA was apprehended. The place of safety for the baby was determined to be grandmother TK’s house. After the baby was taken there, emergency child protection worker Brooke Edel went to TK’s place to complete documentation on the placement. JA arrived at TK’s house, and was angry and swearing. TK told her son to leave or she would call the police. He, in turn, told Ms. Edel that if she wasn’t going to let him see the baby, there were two people who wouldn’t be going to work the next day, police officer and her. As result, Ms. Edel called the RCMP for an escort out of the house, and said in the seven to ten apprehensions she had been involved with, she had never asked for back up from the police to get out, nor had she been threatened like this. [7] This is sad case, as most proceedings under The Child and Family Services Act are. We have two very young parents who want to care for WBA. The issue is whether they are able to provide for this child’s needs and, if not, whether physical or emotional harm to the child is likely to occur to the baby in their care (s. 11(b) of the Act). [8] The plan put forward by the parents at this hearing was that return the baby to live with them at grandfather BA’s farm, situation which is in my view very similar to the circumstances existing on November 23, 2015. Further, am asked to do this based on CB’s evidence, an email about programming JA took at the Society for the Involvement of Good Neighbours (SIGN), and certificates showing completion of parenting classes by CB, JA and BA. Quite significantly, am asked to do so without hearing any evidence from JA or BA, two of the three people the baby was living with when apprehended. II. THE CASE FOR THE MINISTER [9] Because only CB testified, much of the Minister’s evidence is uncontradicted. There was no evidence that CB was abusing drugs or alcohol after WBA was born. Nor was there any evidence that this baby was abused by his youthful parents. What is an issue, is the risk of harm to this infant if returned to his parents. The burden in this case is on the Minister to show both that WBA would be in need of protection if returned to live with his parents at BA’s farm, where he was apprehended, and, further, that the order sought six month temporary order or six month order placing the child with TK as person of sufficient interest is appropriate. will now summarise the evidence not already referred to: (a) Erin Heuser [10] Erin Heuser was involved with this baby and the parents, as child protection worker, on behalf of the Minister. She was present at Yorkton Hospital around the time WBA was born, and set up meeting with CB and JA and grandparents TK and BA. At that meeting, safety plan was drawn up, which meant that the Minister did not proceed with the apprehension. That safety plan was that the grandparents who no longer live together would both move in with JA and CB. One grandparent would always be present to provide supervision and guidance. (b) Debbie Lapitski [11] Ms. Lapitski has been family support worker employed by SIGN for 23 years. She worked with CB and JA from September, 2015 until the date of apprehension on November 23, 2015. She initially had two hours per week with the parents and this was increased to six hours per week, as it was clear that these parents needed more support. It was obvious, based on her observations and her conversations with CB, that both parents became frustrated with the tasks around raising this baby. While some frustration is normal with young parents, it was clear that there was level of stress and anger in this household which went well beyond “the normal”. She said CB wanted to parent, but she, however, was not sure CB was capable of doing it full time. JA, while not disinterested in parenting, was less willing to engage with Ms. Lapitski. [12] The situation came to head on November 23, 2015. She described the young people CB and JA as tired parents who were angry with each other and angry with Ms. Lapitski. The situation escalated as earlier described in this decision. Just prior to WBA being apprehended, JA locked CB and Ms. Lapitski out of the house, in fit of anger, and was alone with WBA. BA was nowhere to be seen. The RCMP were called. [13] I, without hesitation, accept that CB told Ms. Lapitski that JA and she had fight and that he shoved her into the washer and tried to strangle her, and that she then kneed him between the legs. Further, having had chance to assess Ms. Lapitski as witness, thought she presented well, in straightforward manner. Any suggestion as gather is suggested by the parents that she was conspiring with or acting to help TK to get custody of WBA is in my view not supported by the evidence. (c) Christi Fallows [14] Christi Fallows was the child protection worker in charge of this file on the day WBA was apprehended. She received cell phone call from Debbie Lapitski and CB, who were in van outside of the house the young parents were living in at BA’s farm. Both were on Ms. Fallow’s speaker phone. CB said that JA flipped out and locked her in the porch, then pushed her up against the washer and later kicked her and Debbie out of the house. [15] Given the involvement of the Ministry to this date, after Ms. Fallows spoke to her supervisor, she directed that the child be apprehended. Ms. Fallows, as well, directed that WBA be placed with grandmother TK and that place of safety designation report be prepared (which was filed at the hearing as Exhibit P-2). [16] Three days after the apprehension, Ms. Fallows met with CB, JA and BA. She tried to discuss the Minister’s concerns with them. In her words, the meeting did not go well as all three of the others were trying to talk over each other. She explained where WBA had been placed, with grandmother TK. Remarkably, the three wanted the RCMP to supervise any access. In Ms. Fallows words, that wasn’t happening, and must say agree with her assessment about what was reasonable at that point. [17] Ms. Fallows continued to have concerns with JA’s anger, especially when CB refused to give statement to the police about what happened on the apprehension date, and later said it was only minor incident. (d) Cst. Cumby [18] Cst. Andrea Cumby, of the Canora RCMP, testified about her involvement with this family. On July 21, 2015, she received call from BA, who said he had been abused by his son JA for couple of years. Another call was received with yelling in the background. JA had barricaded the driveway to BA’s farm, and was threatening to kill anyone who entered the yard. He had gun, which turned out to be pellet gun. [19] The Canora RCMP asked for, and received, backup from the Kamsack RCMP and the Yorkton RCMP. JA was taken in to custody, and then to Yorkton hospital under The Mental Health Services Act. BA, who was highly stressed and had been hiding under table in his house, was taken away by ambulance, as was CB, in fear that she was already in labour which it turned out she was not. [20] For his actions, JA was charged under The Youth Criminal Justice Act. Cst. Cumby was asked about other files the police had regarding JA. She said these involved uttering threats and assaults, and further, said the police had been called about this youth either by someone complaining about him or by him complaining ten to twelve times. (e) Grandmother TK [21] TK described CB and JA, at the time of WBA’s birth, as immature and not ready to parent. Three days after the birth, she and BA met with child protection worker, and agreed that one grandparent would be with the parents to supervise the care of WBA. For the first few weeks, she and BA alternated in supervising the care of the baby. While present, TK said she did most of the care of WBA. She said CB would feed WBA and then get tired. She described CB as tired, frustrated, not ready to parent, and confused. She said JA was working quite bit and, although he tried to feed the baby, he did not interact much with WBA. [22] TK said, after JA and CB moved out to BA’s farm, these parents dropped the child off with her for her to care for WBA from time to time. She said this was for week to week and half on one occasion. [23] After the apprehension, about six months ago, TK reduced her work schedule from five days week to three days week, and made use of daycare centre, all to help her care for the baby. She said JA and CB would visit with WBA at her place, but the visits varied lot from time to time. Because of the irregularity of the visits, she was concerned with the parents’ reluctance to visit WBA, and stopped visits at her house, rather suggesting that the visits be in public place, where others could see them, or that the visits be otherwise supervised by the Ministry staff. [24] TK clearly believed that these parents were not now prepared and/or able to care for this child as of the date of the hearing. It was obvious that her relationship with her son JA was, and is, poor, and that JA harbours anger towards her. [25] Regarding CB, TK admitted she didn’t know her well, but based on what she knows about her history and based on her observations of her with WBA, she doesn’t trust that CB could fully care for WBA. She said she has seen JA’s anger, and CB’s anger, and has seen that anger directed at each other, which is major concern for her. In particular, she says JA’s anger is unpredictable and she is not sure what will set him off. III. THE CASE FOR THE PARENTS [26] CB was the only witness for the parents. She described how she came to give up her first child for adoption, after the child was apprehended by the Minister of Social Services in Alberta. She was in violent relationship with former spouse, disclosed this to child protection worker and was afraid what would happen to the baby if she stayed in that relationship. [27] After her first child was born, she moved to Saskatchewan, where her grandmother lived, and went to school in Rosetown from May to November of 2014. While there, she had parent aid and was doing parenting preparation as she had not yet decided whether to agree to the adoption, which she subsequently did. [28] CB met JA on an internet dating site, and after two months of phone calls, tweets and exchanging pictures, she moved to BA’s farm near Canora and began living with JA. Early in 2015, she learned she was pregnant, and was very happy as this was second chance for her. [29] CB started looking into parenting classes, and began seeing worker named Sandy at Mental Health once week. In August, after the incident with JA and BA and the RCMP in July, she began seeing family support worker Debbie Lapitski. The two discussed such issues as getting the appropriate car seat and baby swing. She admitted to telling Ms. Lapitski she was anxious and worried about the birth of the child. She was worried that her baby would, again, be apprehended. [30] Sometime in the summer of 2015 and it was confusing to try to follow the dates of events in this case with any precision CB and JA moved to house in Canora. She has little recollection of the labour and birth of WBA, during time which she lost considerable amount of blood. She agreed with the Minister’s employees that either BA or TK would be present to supervise her and JA once they returned home with the baby. She said, in the early weeks of the child’s life, she was involved with feeding and bathing her son. [31] At some point gather after few weeks CB and JA moved to BA’s farm, where it was not as crowded as the house in Canora. During the weeks that followed, CB admitted that she and JA did drop the baby off to TK, but claimed TK didn’t cooperate with them regarding when the baby was to be picked up. [32] major part of the evidence in this hearing centred on the poor relationship between JA and CB, on the one hand, and TK, on the other. As said in court at the start of the hearing, ultimately must deal with what is in the best interests of WBA. It was my attempt to keep the focus on the infant and avoid hostilities between the parties. That said, and acknowledging the cognitive challenges CB has, find it difficult not to mention CB’s assessment of TK. She said when she first met her TK was as nice as pie to her, until TK found out that CB was pregnant, and now CB thinks that TK is bitch and there is no positive relationship between them. [33] On November 23, 2015, the appointment CB had was with Bernice Cartwright, family violence counsellor at SIGN. She acknowledged that both herself and JA have “issues” and she had hoped that he would come with her this day to the appointment. He refused and was angry. It is sad, and perhaps telling, that CB blames herself for JA’s anger over this. She summarised the issue by saying when JA is mad, she can’t tell him to calm down, he just has to be alone, and, further, that “he has his moments”. That, in my view, is an understatement. [34] When Ms. Lapitski arrived, CB said there was yelling and screaming and swearing back and forth between JA and Ms. Lapitski. [35] CB doesn’t remember talking to Christi Fallows on the phone that day. am satisfied she did, and that both Ms. Fallows and Ms. Lapitski accurately described what she said to them that day. [36] CB concluded her evidence by saying that, if WBA was returned to her and JA, they would live at BA’s farm or she would look for house in Sturgis or Preeceville (although there was no suggestion she had begun this search). She would make appropriate arrangements such as car seat and crib. JA is working full time at farm in Hazel Dell. Her supports would be friend named Tanya, neighbour named Roy, and grandfather BA, who lives in second house on the farm. No other details were given. [37] CB would also be open to another family support worker, other than Ms. Lapitski. To be clear, though, Ms. Taylor says the family support program is not prepared to provide an employee to work with these parents. IV. IS THIS CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION? [38] As said earlier, this sad case. We have very young parents who, each with significant challenges, want to care for their infant. We have grandmother, who is now caring for the child, and has provided not all, but most, of the care for this child since birth. We have all sorts of mistrust between the parents and the grandmother. We, as well, have child protection workers from the Ministry of Social Services who have the difficult job of ensuring this child is not in need of protection. [39] Regarding CB’s FASD assessment, filed as Exhibit P-1, gather there is lack of information about whether her mother drank during her pregnancy. As result, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder cannot be confirmed. That said, it is obvious CB suffers from cognitive disability. The report says: based on the occupational therapy and psychological assessments completed with CB, significant deficits were identified related to broad cognitive abilities, memory skills, communication skills, academic development, social cognition, adaptive/life skills, executive functioning, fine and gross motor skills, and visual-motor-integration skills. Considering that report, and the evidence presented at this hearing, it is obvious to me that CB needs significant amount of support to be able to parent this child. [40] It is as well obvious that JA is sixteen year old father who works hard to provide for his family, and am sure wants to be able to care for his son, but who, nevertheless, has some significant anger issues. appreciate that although he did not testify he has seen Bernice Cartwright at SIGN and that she wrote an email (Exhibit D-1) describing him as mature for his age and saying he and CB have shown great improvement in understanding what productive relationship is based on, despite the initial meeting with her being very tense. The email as well reflects how both JA and CB view grandmother TK as “thorn in their side”. [41] Even considering the meeting with Ms. Cartwright and the parenting programming JA has apparently done, based on the certificates filed as Exhibit D-2, it is difficult for me to reach any other conclusion than that this young man has some significant anger management issues that are yet to be dealt with. He baracaded his father’s farm last July, and threatened to kill anyone who came onto the farm. Police officers from three detachments were required to defuse this situation. After the child was apprehended he made threats directed to both police officer and child protection worker. Cst. Cumby said the Canora detachment had ten to twelve files regarding this sixteen year old. [42] Having heard the Minister’s evidence - the child protection workers, the family support worker, the police officer and grandmother TK, together with having read the FASD assessment - I am satisfied that WBA was in need of protection on November 23, 2015, when apprehended. I conclude that the parents were not, at that time, able to care for WBA and that physical or emotional harm was likely to occur to this six week old baby. [43] Similarly, when I consider the plan put forward by CB - to return the infant to the parents’ care in the same location as on November 23, 2015 with the support of grandfather BA, who was living there on the apprehension date, and a friend and neighbour of her’s - and even considering any programming done by the parents, I remain satisfied that this infant would remain in need of protection. That is not to say it is impossible for these parents to care for this child at some point. But it is to say that am not satisfied on the evidence presented that the care these young parents could as of today provide for this child would result in WBA not being in need of protection. V. WHAT ORDER SHOULD BE MADE? [44] Having found that WBA is in need of protection under s. 11(b), that then leads to the question of what order should be made under s. 37 of the Act. gather that, while in TK’s care, the parents saw the child only about six times. Without getting into the “blame game”, this is obviously not enough visits, and encourage the Ministry staff to encourage as much visitation between the parents and WBA as is reasonably possible. [45] All that said, this baby has been in the care of his grandmother for most of his life, and am satisfied that TK has cared well for WBA. I have no hesitation, considering all of her involvement to date, in finding TK to be a person of sufficient interest, and I so order under s. 23 of the Act. [46] As stated above, am not satisfied that the care these young parents could as of today provide for this child would result in WBA not being in need of protection. While not foreclosing the possibility of placing the child in their custody at a later time, I am satisfied on the evidence at this hearing that WBA should be placed in TK’s custody, as a person of sufficient interest, for a fixed period of four months, pursuant to s. 37(1)(b). That period is of shorter duration than the six months suggested by the Minister, but I have considered that: (1) given a variety of reasons, the parents have not had adequate access to their child so as to build a more positive relationship with him; and (2) there was no evidence that either parent abused or mistreated this child. Given both of these considerations, I view four months as a sufficient time for the parents to begin building a positive relationship with their child through access and, with the assistance of others, to come up with a plan that would allow them to care for their child so that child would not be in need of protection. [47] As result, order, pursuant to ss. 23 and 37(1)(b) of the Act, that the child WBA be placed in the custody of TK, as person of sufficient interest, for four months from today, subject to the conditions that: (a) Both parents will have liberal access to WBA, as arranged by the Minister’s employees; (b) Both parents will participate in any anger management or parenting programming as directed by the Minister’s employees; and (c) Both parents will co-operate in any parenting assessment done by the Minister’s employees, if such an assessment is undertaken during the course of this order.
HELD: The court found that the child was in need of protection under s. 11(b) of The Child and Family Services Act, that his parents were unable to care for him, and that physical or emotional harm was likely to occur to him. J.A.’s mother was found to be a person of sufficient interest under s. 23 of the Act. The court ordered that the child should be placed in the custody of J.A.’s mother as a person of sufficient interest for a period of four months pursuant to s. 37(1)(b) of the Act. The child’s parents should have adequate access to build their relationship with him and to allow them, with the assistance of others, to come up with a plan that would allow them to eventually care for their child.