nan F.S.M. A.D. 1995 No. 112 J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH (FAMILY LAW DIVISION) JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA IN THE MATTER OF HEARING UNDER PART OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IN THE MATER OF J, Lj and L. Sandstrom-Smith for the Minister of Social Services representing herself representing himself ORDER AND REASONS THEREFOR ARMSTRONG J. January 15, 1999 J, Lj, and are all children of and L. The Minister of Social Services ("the Minister") seeks an order under s. 37(2) of The Child and Family Services Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. C-7.2 (the “Act”), permanently committing to the Minister all three children. The children were born: J, […], 1992 Lj, […], 1993 and T, […], 1995. At the conclusion of the hearing held to enquire into the matter, decision was reserved. It is now ordered, pursuant to s. 37(2) of the Act that all three children be permanently committed to the Minister, for the reasons that follow. Since the birth of the oldest child, J, the Department of Social Services (the “Department”) has been very much involved. The decision by the Minister to make the present application was not taken in haste. The Department has struggled for six years to overcome the dysfunction in this family and the risks to the children, without success. The following shows the periods up to the commencement of the hearing during which each of the children has been in the care of the Minister under various orders or agreements. Period Length of Time nan March 16, 1993—June 17, 1993 months September 23, 1993—May 20, 1994 months June 30, 1995—Present years, months Lj September 23, 1993—May 20, 1994 months June 30, 1995—Present years, months nan September 11, 1996—Present years, month In addition, during periods when there was child or children at home, help was provided to the parents through parent aides supplied under contracts for the following periods: October 1992—March 1993 December 1994—February 1995 July 1995—October 1996 March 1997 to the present. Parent aide assistance since March, 1997 has been to supervise visits with the children and provide support for C. The Minister called 18 witnesses. and may not be bad people but they have failed as parents. They are both much too irresponsible to have the care and control of all or any of their children. In argument at conclusion of the hearing agreed that as of now this is so. He, however, seems to think that he will yet overcome his problems, all of which he blames on alcohol, and prove himself good, responsible father. He wants time. He says he was good father to his children from previous marriage. He at least recognizes that he has real problem but he has known this for years and has failed all previous chances to change. It is doubtful whether realizes that she has all along been unable or unwilling to take action to protect the children against their exposure to domestic disharmony and violence. She has always appeared more anxious about excusing L than about protecting the children. It is also doubtful that she recognizes or accepts that when she fails to properly supervise or protect the children it is either because she does not recognize the needs of the children or if she does, she cannot will herself into action. It may be that she cannot help being the way she is because of some underlying condition but such fact does not, of course, go any way towards meeting the needs of the children. She is described by Elizabeth Ivanochko, Ph.D., psychologist, as having dependency syndrome. In short, she does not seem up to doing things with respect to the children herself or perhaps even want to. When she can she relies on others including L. apparently has much more ability than does in such as housekeeping and cooking but is great part of the problem. He is an abusive alcoholic yet C is in denial as to his faults. There are apparently no other adults outside of foster care homes having any connection with the children and the evidence is clear that the children have been and continue to be in need of protection. The behaviour of both C and L in relation to the hearing could, itself, be enough to support a conclusion under s. 11(b) of the Act that there is no adult person able and willing to provide for the children's needs and physical or emotional harm may come to the children if it has not already. Both and are self-centred to where the result is indifference to the needs of the children whenever there is trouble. When the hearing was called on October 19, 1998, neither nor were present. Representatives from the Department eventually got the attention of by going to their home not once, but twice (she pretended to not be home the first time) and persuading her to come with them to court. was not at home. When she got to court she said she did not have lawyer and did not want lawyer because Legal Aid lawyers were of no help to her and she was going to lose anyway. Yet she had been told two months previously at chambers hearing that she should get another lawyer, the one she had had having withdrawn. did not show. The hearing proceeded. On the third day advised the court that she had separated from and that this time it was for good. She went on to say that she now wanted to get lawyer feeling that without in her life she might be more successful in getting her children back. The hearing was adjourned so that could get lawyer and to give her lawyer time to prepare. On the day the hearing was reconvened appeared but did not. representative from the Department went to C's home and spoke to her but was unable to persuade her to attend the hearing. She learned from that had not tried to get lawyer. The court was told by that just before the hearing commenced in October he had been told by that she did not want to attend. He had thought she should and because she would not he decided to go and get drunk which apparently he did. (C had earlier in the hearing told the court that during an adjournment for lunch she had seen in the bar). and do not want to see the children permanently committed to the Minister. Yet neither nor could muster the will to exercise enough responsibility to even appear at the whole hearing into the matter, let alone seek legal assistance and to try to make their case against permanent committal. Since the birth of there have been number of occasions when, because of L's behaviour, it became necessary in the opinion of social workers from the Department that the children be removed from the home to protect them from violence and disharmony in the home when drank. In each case C, after being given safe haven with the Department's assistance for herself and the children, decided after day or two to go back to and leave the children in the care of the Minister. simply chose over the children. But chooses alcohol over both and the children. The evidence satisfies me that physically abused C. was, and continues to be in denial of this or to excuse it. The evidence also satisfies me that the children's exposure to the domestic violence and disharmony may have harmed and would if allowed to continue, likely further harm the children emotionally. The children have been and accordingly continue to be in need of protection as provided by s. 11(a)(ii) and (vi) of the Act. The violence and disharmony is in my view another symptom of being unable or unwilling to provide for the needs of the children. The children, if left with their parents, could well suffer physical harm through lack of supervision as in s. 11(a)(i) of the Act. It is difficult to know whether the parents fail to recognize the danger in certain situations or whether, although recognizing it, do not act on the recognition or, particularly in the case of C, have become so used to reliance on parent aide, as to leave it to the parent aide when present to do the acting. Not too long ago during visitation period in the home of and L, there was an instance of waving an open pair of scissors in the face of in the presence of the parent aide and C. did nothing until after the parent aide had intervened. Would she have done anything if the parent aide had not been there? There are other instances that indicate that probably would not have. For example, with toddler about there was an open stairwell left unguarded by any kind of gate. In another instance one of the children was left unattended in position near the hot stove and it could easily have fallen over onto or against the hot stove. Only the parent aide intervened to do something about it although it should have been obvious to both and L. And did not herself seem to realize the necessity of supporting baby’s head when carrying it but had to be always reminded of this by the parent aide. And she could not seem to remember to do so even after much reminding. Something else which I should specifically mention is the fact that L has recently pleaded guilty to a sexual assault on an eight year old girl. He says the guilty plea was made “with explanations”. His explanation as given in the present hearing is alcohol. He had not been sentenced at the time of the present hearing. I do not have enough of the facts to be able to act on it but it could, of course, depending on the facts, be a ground under s. 11(a)(iii) of the Act for a finding of need for protection. Typically think, instead of being concerned for her children tries to protect L. She seems to think the complainant lies even though has pleaded guilty. And she excuses whatever he did as being the result of his drinking. has an attitudinal problem. Perhaps it is the dependency syndrome. From the very beginning, that is from the birth of J, has been relying on others. She does so as if it was matter of entitlement to do so. For example when still in the hospital after the birth of J, needed to be fed, tried to get nurse to do it rather than do it herself. Over the years nothing much has changed. has failed to learn much about parenting and what she has learned she has trouble putting into practice. She leans on others whenever she can. There are many, many instances of what, in themselves, may be relatively insignificant taken in isolation but when added together amount to clear evidence of the children needing protection because and are not, either alone or together, able and willing to provide for the children's needs. One of those needs is the need for proper supervision which there has not been. Another is the need to protect the children from exposure to the domestic disharmony and indeed domestic violence that has been part of the ongoing pattern of living of and L. Of course if C remains separated from L the domestic disharmony, at least between those two, would in the future not be a factor, but then C simply does not have the competency to parent one of the three let alone all three children on her own. Again, maybe there is something in C's makeup that she cannot overcome but while this may mean that she is not at all to be blamed for her inadequacies as parent, still it means that adequate parenting must be found for the children. has been diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In early 1997 was attending classes with the idea of getting her grade and eventual grade XII. She apparently exhibited symptoms of ADD and was referred for medical diagnosis which found there to be ADD. She was placed on medication. According to report filed, assessments completed subsequent to her going on medication showed some improvement in some areas of learning ability. However, there has not been any change in her attitude or ability in relation to parenting. Adequate parenting has been found for the children in the foster home in which they are now residing. But this situation cannot be guaranteed to last. One of the foster parents is not in good health and the prognosis is not good. There is no possibility of the children being adopted by these foster parents. and have had years to develop the ability and willingness to properly care for the children. They have not done so and do not appear to be much closer than they ever were, although has almost inevitably acquired some knowledge and skills she did not have before. have not been given any reason to believe that and or either of them can sufficiently change within six months or year, or ever, to the point where the children or any of them could safely be returned to or L. An officer of the Department has recommended permanent committal to the Minister. There has been testimony that adoption of all three children by one family is possible. accept the evidence that the children need and deserve the stability that this could provide. agree with the recommendation for permanent committal. have no authority to attach any conditions to the order. should comment, however, that the testimony makes it clear that regardless of their deficiencies and inadequacies and love their children. There has always been some contact through visits even though, particularly in the case of L, it has been sporadic at times. There has been testimony that during visitation the interaction between the parents and the children may not be just what others think it should be but it is clear from the testimony that the affection and love are there. mention this for whatever assistance it may be should consideration be given to an open adoption if such appears possible.
The Minister of Social Services sought an order under s.37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act to permanently commit all three children to the Minister. The Department of Social Services had been involved with the family since the birth of the oldest child. The children had been in the care of the Minister at various times and parent aides provided help to the parents when there was child or children at home. The Minister called 18 witnesses. HELD: All three children were committed permanently to the Minister. 1)The mother appeared to be more anxious about excusing the father, who was an abusive alcoholic, than about protecting the children. The mother was unable to parent any of the children on her own. It was concluded under s.11(b) of the Act that there was no adult person able and willing to provide for the children's needs and physical or emotional harm may come to the children if it had not already. 2)The father had recently pleaded guilty to sexual assault on an eight year old girl which could, depending on the facts be a ground under s.11(a)(iii) of the Act for a finding of need for protection.