F.S.M. A.D. 1995 No. 10 J.C.S. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH FAMILY LAW DIVISION JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT IN RESPECT OF: [C.C.], born February 24, 1992 Leslie Belloc-Pinder for the Department of Social Services Nicholas Stooshinoff for the mother Graham Dove for the father JUDGMENT BLACKLOCK LINN J. September 26, 1996 This hearing concerns the future of a four and one-half year old girl, [C.C.], who is presently infoster care. The Department is requesting a permanent orderpursuant to s. 37(2) of The Child and Family Services Act,S.S. 1989-90, c. C-7.2. The parents would like to have thechild returned to their care, or alternatively, to have thechild remain with the present foster family on a long-termbasis. The parents, [L.C.] and [J.C.], cared for the child during her first year with the help of parent aide, [F.S.]. Although they needed lot of help, they were able to provide [C.C.] with her physical needs and were bonding with the child. Ms. [F.S.] had serious concerns, however, with the stormy relationship between the parents. The father is 48 years of age and the mother is 24 years of age. The parents were "constantly arguing" according to Ms. [F.S.], and the father was emotionally abusive to the mother, calling her "stupid" and "mentally slow". As the baby got older (four or five months) the parents had much more difficulty managing her. As well, their domestic problems escalated. At one point, due to the father's abuse, the mother left the home for short time. Ms. F.S.] felt the couple needed time to stabilize their relationship and suggested s. agreement. The parents agreed and the child came into care on November 30, 1993. Ms. [F.S.]'s main concerns at that time were two-fold: (1) that the mother needed great deal of help to care for the child, and indeed was not able to do so on her own, and (2) Ms. [F.S.] did not like the way the father treated the mother and felt that he was "hindrance" to the mother in many ways. Other Department witnesses, Cornell Beuker and Laura Haye also testified to serious difficulties in the relationship between the parents and the difficulty that the mother had in caring for the child on her own. The child has now been in the [P.] foster home for nearly three years. The [P.]'s initially cared for [C.C.] under the s. agreement, and then following her apprehension in January, 1995. Clearly, the child is doing very well with the [P.]'s and is receiving excellent care. [C.C.] has been diagnosed as having attention deficit hyperactive disorder and is presently on ritalin two times week with very positive results. The natural parents have access every Friday afternoon for two hours and those visits seem to go well. Fortunately, the [P.]'s have good relationship with the parents and they freely share information with each other. The Department tried longer visits over this past summer, but they have been terminated as result of [C.C.] exhibiting some negative behaviour after the weekend visit. Apparently, the child was slapping herself and saying that her mother had slapped her during the visit. The mother denied this in her testimony and provided another explanation for the child's behaviour. The parents both testified, stating that they wished to have [C.C.] returned to them. They were married in November, 1995 and both say that their relationship is much better than when [C.C.] was in their care. However, the parents also acknowledge that [C.C.] is doing very well in the [P.] foster home, and that if she is not to be returned to them, then they would like her to remain with the [P.]'s. After considering all the evidence, I find that thechild [C.C.] is in need of protection. When theparents had the custody of the child, they were unable toprovide for all her needs, even with considerable assistancefrom the Department. As well, the child was exposed to severedomestic disharmony that could have resulted in emotional harmto her. Although the parents testified that recently theirrelationship has improved, I cannot find, from the evidence,that their ability to provide for [C.C.]'s needs hasimproved significantly. From the evidence of Mrs. [P.], andthe medical report of Dr. McKenna, it is apparent that[C.C.] is a child who requires enormous amounts of care andattention on a daily basis. will not review the evidence of the foster mother in detail except to say that few parents could have coped with child like [C.C.] prior to the assistance of Dr. McKenna. After two years, the foster parents were very nearly at the end of their rope with [C.C.], and Mrs. [P.] was near exhaustion. Since [C.C.] has been on ritalin, her behaviour has improved significantly such that she can now attend pre-school and take dancing lessons. However, Mrs. [P.] made it clear that the ritalin did not perform miracles and that [C.C.] continues to require considerable care and patience. I find that thenatural parents are unable to care for [C.C.] particularlygiven her special needs resulting from the attention deficitdisorder diagnosis. The Department is requesting permanent order so that they have more options in planning for [C.C.]'s future. It is absolutely clear to me, however, that it is in[C.C.]'s best interest to remain where she is and tocontinue to have contact with her natural parents. Given the special needs of [C.C.], it is unlikely that an adoption plan would be made, and indeed to remove this child from the [P.]'s home could be extremely damaging and emotionally traumatic for the child. Mrs. [P.] testified that she and her husband were committed to [C.C.] and would care for her until she was 18. She further stated that they love [C.C.] "like our own" and will not take in any other foster children as long as they have [C.C.]. It goes against all good sense to make any order which might alter the present arrangement for the care of [C.C.]. Therefore, having determined that the child is inneed of protection, and further having determined that it isin [C.C.]'s best interest to remain with the [P.]'s and tocontinue to have visits with her natural parents, I order thatthe child be placed in the custody of the Minister until theage of 18 years. In so doing, I strongly recommend that thechild remain in the [P.] foster home. I further order thatthe natural parents, [L.C.] and [J.C.], havereasonable access to the child.
The Department of Social Services requested a permanent custody order for a four and one-half year child pursuant to s37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act. The parents sought custody, or alternatively, to have the child remain with the present foster family. HELD: The child was placed in the custody of the Minister until the age of 18 years. It was strongly recommended that she remain in the foster parents' home where she had been for three years. The natural parents were to have reasonable access. 1)The child was in need of protection. The parents were unable to provide for all her needs even with the considerable assistance from the Department. She was exposed to severe domestic disharmony which could have resulted in emotional harm. The natural parents' ability to provide for her needs had not improved significantly. The child's special needs resulting from attention deficit disorder required enormous amounts of care and attention on a daily basis. 2)It was in the child's best interests to remain where she was and to continue to have contact with her natural parents.