QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2006 SKQB 511 Date: 2006 11 30 Docket: F.S.M. No. 3/2004 Judicial Centre: Estevan, Family Law Division IN THE MATTER OF HEARING UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF [E.K.], BORN NOVEMBER 8, 1990 [J.S.] BORN OCTOBER 17, 1992 [C.S.], BORN SEPTEMBER 4, 1994 Counsel: Darcia Schirr, Q.C. for the Department of Community Resources [T.K.] appearing for herself [K.S.] not appearing JUDGMENT GUNN J. November 30, 2006 [1] The Department of Community Resources (“DCR”) seeks orders pursuant to The Child and Family Services Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. C-7.2 (the “Act”) placing [C.S.] with the Department until age 18 pursuant to subsection 37(2); and [J.S.] with his grandmother as a Person of Sufficient Interest (“P.S.I.”) pursuant to s. 37(1)(b). With respect to [E.K.], DCR’s initial position was to seek an order placing [E.K.] with the Department until age 18, but in view of [E.K.]’s stated intention to return to his parents’ home on his 16th birthday, which was November 8, 2006, DCR sought an order placing [E.K.] with the Minister until his 16th birthday, which was granted at the trial. [2] The children have the same biological parents, [T.K.] and [K.S.]. [T.K.] does not oppose the applications in respect of [J.S.] and [E.K.], but seeks the return of [C.S.] to her care. [K.S.] did not attend the pre-trial or the trial although he and [T.K.] are cohabiting. He was served with the notice of the application, and the notice of the trial. THE LEGISLATION [3] The following sections of the Act are relevant: The purpose of this Act is to promote the well‑being of children in need of protection by offering, wherever appropriate, services that are designed to maintain, support and preserve the family in the least disruptive manner. Where person or court is required by any provision of this Act other than subsection 49(2) to determine the best interests of child, the person or court shall take into account: (a) the quality of the relationships that the child has with any person who may have close connection with the child; (b) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development; (c) the child’s emotional, cultural, physical, psychological and spiritual needs; (d) the home environment proposed to be provided for the child; (e) the plans for the care of the child of the person to whom it is proposed that the custody of the child be entrusted; (f) where practicable, the child’s wishes, having regard to the age and level of the child’s development; (g) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; and (h) the effect on the child of delay in making decision. ... 11 child is in need of protection where: (a) as result of action or omission by the child’s parent: (i) the child has suffered or is likely to suffer physical harm; (ii) the child has suffered or is likely to suffer serious impairment of mental or emotional functioning; (iii) the child has been or is likely to be exposed to harmful interaction for sexual purpose, including involvement in prostitution and including conduct that may amount to an offence within the meaning of the Criminal Code; (iv) medical, surgical or other recognized remedial care or treatment that is considered essential by duly qualified medical practitioner has not been or is not likely to be provided to the child; (v) the child’s development is likely to be seriously impaired by failure to remedy mental, emotional or developmental condition; or (vi) the child has been exposed to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony that is likely to result in physical or emotional harm to the child; (b) there is no adult person who is able and willing to provide for the child’s needs, and physical or emotional harm to the child has occurred or is likely to occur; or (c) the child is less than 12 years of age and: (i) there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that: (A) the child has committed an act that, if the child were 12 years of age or more, would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code, the Narcotic Control Act (Canada) or Part III or Part IV of the Food and Drug Act (Canada); and (B) family services are necessary to prevent recurrence; and (ii) the child’s parent is unable or unwilling to provide for the child’s needs. 36(1) On protection hearing, the court shall determine whether the child is in need of protection. (2) Where the court determines that child is in need of protection, the officer shall present to the court the officer’s recommendations respecting an order to be made pursuant to section 37. (3) If the court determines that child is not in need of protection, it shall dismiss the application and order the return of the child to person who has right to custody of the child. (4) An order pursuant to subsection (3) does not constitute an order for custody of the child. 37(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the court determines that child is in need of protection, the court shall make an order that the child: (a) remain with, be returned to or be placed in the custody of his or her parent; (b) be placed in the custody of person having sufficient interest in the child; or (c) remain in or be placed in the custody of the minister for temporary period not exceeding six months. (2) If, in the opinion of the court, none of the orders described in subsection (1) is appropriate, the court shall make an order permanently committing the child to the minister. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the court may, if it is of the view that: (a) child is in need of protection; and (b) by reason of the age of the child or other circumstances, it is unlikely that an adoption plan would be made if the child were permanently committed to the minister; order that the child be placed in the custody of the minister until the child attains the age of 18 years. (4) In making an order pursuant to subsection (1), (2) or (3), the court: (a) shall consider the best interests of the child; (b) may consider the recommendations of the officer mentioned in subsection 36(2); and (c) may consider the recommendations of chief, chief’s designate or an agency that appears in court pursuant to subsection (11). (5) In making an order pursuant to subsection (1) or (3), the court may: (a) impose any terms and conditions that the court considers appropriate; and (b) include in the order provision respecting access to the child. (6) If the court, in making an order pursuant to clause (1)(a) or (b), orders supervision of the child by the minister as term or condition of the order, the period of supervision shall not exceed one year. (7) In making an order pursuant to clause (1)(b), the court may direct that the order shall terminate after the expiry of period, not exceeding one year, specified in the order. (8) Any order made pursuant to clause (1)(a) or (b) or section 16 that is inconsistent with an existing custody order of superior court shall be considered an interim order that is subject to further order of superior court. (9) The court shall provide to each party to the proceedings written summary of its reasons for determining that the child is in need of protection. (10) Notwithstanding subsection 33(1), where an officer intends to apply to the court for an order pursuant to subsection (2) or (3) and the child who is the subject of the proposed hearing is status Indian whose name is included in Band List or who is entitled to have his or her name included in Band List, the officer shall give 60 days’ notice of the application for the protection hearing to the child’s band or the agency, if any, that is providing family services to members of the child’s band. (11) Where band or an agency has received notice pursuant to subsection (10): (a) the chief of the band, the chief’s designate or the agency may appear in court to make recommendations with respect to the application; and (b) where the chief, the chief’s designate or the agency appears in court pursuant to clause (a), the band or the agency is party to the proceedings. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS [4] Given the significant passage of time since the apprehension of the children and the trial, think it useful to review the history of the proceedings in the court. The children were apprehended by Christa Dacio, an officer and protection worker under the Act on April 30, 2004. Appearances were made on May 19, 2004 and June 2, 2004 and pre-trial conference was set for June 15, 2004. The pre-trial did not proceed on June 15, 2004 and the matter was spoken to in Chambers on June 16, 2004 at which time the following order was made pursuant to s. 35 of the Act: Having heard the evidence adduced make an Interim Order that the children ... remain in the care of the Minister and it is further ordered that the protection hearing be adjourned to Wednesday, August 18, 2004.... [5] August 18, 2004 the hearing was adjourned to September 14, 2004 for pre-trial conference. An order was made directing that the children remain in the care of the Minister in the home of their grandmother, [S.K.]. [6] September 14, 2004, the pre-trial was adjourned sine die. An order was made that it could be re-convened by either party on 10 days’ notice to the other party. The fiat further provided that consent order may be filed in due course. No order was filed. [7] pre-trial conference set for March 29, 2005 was adjourned to May 24, 2005. It was further adjourned to June 17, 2005. [8] June 17, 2005, an order was issued with the consent of DCR and the mother. The children were found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 11(a)(i) of the Act and an order was made placing them in the care of the Minister for period of three months on the following conditions: 1. Through the course of the Order, [T.K.] shall have generous and flexible access to the children, [J.S.] and [C.S.] whether they remain in the care of [S.K.] or in Departmental foster home. As to the child [E.K.], [T.K.] shall maintain contact with him and have access to him if and when he returns to Estevan. 2. [T.K.] will encourage and be supportive of all three children receiving counselling services as may [sic] directed by the Department. 3. [T.K.] will co-operate with her mental health professionals and follow all treatment recommendations made. In the event [T.K.] is hospitalized, she agrees she will not voluntarily discharge herself. Further, Mrs. [T.K.] will co‑operate with the Department by providing Release so that the Department might obtain information as to Mrs. [T.K.]s’ treatment compliance from her mental health professionals and mental health facilities. 4. [T.K.] agrees to co-operate and communicate with the Department. [9] The matter was set to be reviewed on September 13, 2005. On that date it was directed that trial date be fixed and that the June 17, 2005 order continue until the completion of the trial. Following this [T.K.]’s counsel withdrew. further order was made on May 8, 2006 designating [S.K.] as person having sufficient interest in [J.S.], pursuant to s. 23(1)(a) of the Act. [10] Accordingly, the children have been in the care of the Department since April 30, 2004, period of approximately 31 months. [11] The trial commenced June 26, 2006 and concluded September 29, 2006. [T.K.] represented herself throughout, although several adjournments were granted at her request for her to take steps to obtain counsel. She ultimately decided to continue representing herself. THE EVIDENCE The Apprehension [12] April 30, 2004, Christa Dacio was called to the children’s school by Linda Henderson, the acting principal of Westview School. Ms. Dacio was advised that [E.K.] had disclosed to an educational assistant, Adrian Sinclair, that [T.K.] had hit him four times with belt the previous evening. [E.K.] had scratches and marks on his neck which were visible. [13] When Ms. Dacio arrived at the school she interviewed each of the children separately. [14] Ms. Dacio spoke to [E.K.] first for about one half hour. At that time he was 13 years of age and in grade 8. He appeared to be quiet, shy and reserved. He did not respond easily to questions. He needed direction. He told her he did not like school, he liked gym and he liked to hang out with his friends. [15] Ms. Dacio could see scratches on the left side of his neck and bruises or red marks on the right side. When he was asked about these marks, Ms. Dacio testified he became defensive and jumpy. He told her he had received the scratches from the cat. He also rubbed his neck and said he did not have any scratches. He did up his bunny hug. Ms. Dacio said she made no assumptions about the cause of the scratches. She did not know what had caused them. [16] Ms. Dacio asked him what happens at home when he gets into trouble and he replied that he was usually sent to his room. When she asked him about what happened on the previous night he explained that his mom asked him to go to his grandma’s to get cigarette tubes. When he asked if he could call her first to make sure she was home, his mother got “mad.” She threw him out of the house and yelled at him. He had pushed her. [17] When he was asked to describe his home life he said his parents fight lot. When asked if he was ever hit, he said no. When he was asked what he would change if he could, he said he had lived long enough to know nothing would change. He said he had lot of anger inside him and he did not want to talk about it. He then refused to participate any further in the interview. [18] Ms. Dacio acknowledged in cross-examination that [E.K.] did not seem angry when he was interviewed by her. He did not seem hateful toward his parents. He did not seem to be scared of his parents. He never told her he was beaten at home, except once by his dad long time ago. He never said [T.K.] was bad mother. He said he fights with his brother and sister all the time, but never explained why. He said this makes his siblings get really upset and cry. [19] Ms. Dacio spent about 10 minutes with [J.S.]. He was very shy and timid. He clapped and rubbed his hands together. He appeared to be nervous, looked at the floor and did not make eye contact. [J.S.] was 11 years old and in grade at the time of this interview. [J.S.] said he liked to play and watch baseball. He said he was sometimes happy at home. [J.S.] said that there were fights at home involving [E.K.] and his mom and dad. He said that if he got into trouble at home he was sent to his room. [20] [C.S.] spent approximately 15 minutes with Ms. Dacio. She was quiet and appeared to be afraid. She started the interview with her bunny hug up over her head so that Ms. Dacio could hardly see her face. Part way through the interview she took it off. [C.S.] was years old and in Grade at the time of the interview. She said she wanted to live with her grandmother because she was not happy at home. She said she was afraid at home because of the fighting and hitting at home involving her mom and dad and [E.K.]. [21] [C.S.] described the events of April 29, 2004. She said she saw her mom and [E.K.] fighting. [E.K.] pushed her mom and then grabbed butcher knife and went outside. She saw [E.K.] put the knife through the door. She saw her mom hit [E.K.] with belt. [C.S.] said she wasn’t ever hit. [22] The children said the fighting referred to by them meant yelling and screaming, not physical interaction. [23] After conducting these interviews with the children, Ms. Dacio made the decision to apprehend the children. She spoke with them together to advise them of this. She told them she was concerned about the hitting and the fighting. [J.S.] and [C.S.] said okay. [E.K.] was upset and said they had better just go home because he would get into trouble. Then all the children said they wanted to go to their grandma [S.K.]’s. Their grandmother agreed to take the children. [24] At this time, [S.K.] told DCR that [T.K.] was unstable mentally and that she was taking anti-depressants. She also said [K.S.] was an alcoholic who was physically abusive to [T.K.]. [25] May 1, 2004, Ms. Dacio observed interviews conducted by the police with the children and [T.K.]. She was not in the room with them but was in position to see, and hear the conversations. [26] [E.K.] spoke with Sgt. Eagles. He said he was hit three days out of seven with belt. On April 29, his mom grabbed him by his neck and threw him outside. He said his dad had not hit him in long time as he was not around very much. [27] [J.S.] just rubbed and clapped his hands and looked at the floor. [28] [C.S.] talked about the events of April 29. She said she saw her mom hit [E.K.] with belt, and that [E.K.] was hit two days out of seven regularly. She said [E.K.] fools around and that is why he gets hit. [C.S.] said they were all hit with the belt. She said her mom and dad fight lot. [29] [C.S.] was also asked what happens when mom gets mad. Her response was that she throws stuff, gets rowdy, hyper and gives warning. After that she did not know. [30] [T.K.] told the police that she had trouble handling [E.K.] that night, even though he is good child. She told the police that number of people had contacted her about [E.K.]. [31] In her evidence [T.K.] denied that [E.K.] was hit three days out of seven as he indicated to Sgt. Eagles. She did acknowledge she was having difficulty with [E.K.] on the night in question. [K.S.] was away and [E.K.] was bothering the younger children. She told him to go out and he did not want to go. He grabbed knife. She said she tried to push him out the door and told him to put the knife down. He said he would not hurt her with it but he did have it in his hand. [T.K.] called her brother [S.] to come over to help her. [E.K.] went outside and cooled down. The next day he was taken away. She denies hitting him with the belt and says his scratches were from the cat. [32] There was no evidence that any criminal charges were laid as result of this information. Post-apprehension [33] The children were placed with [S.K.] on April 30, 2004. Ms. Dacio said she knew that [S.K.] was an alcoholic and that she had previously lived with an abuser. Ms. Dacio acknowledged that DCR did not do any investigation of [S.K.]’s home prior to placing the children. She considered it to be an emergency situation and the children wanted to be there. [34] At the time of the children’s placement, [S.K.] was living in two bedroom apartment with [D.P.]. [S.K.] managed the apartment building in which they lived. [S.K.] describes her relationship with [D.P.] as being platonic. They each had their own bedrooms in the apartment. When the children arrived they all slept in [S.K.]’s bedroom, and [S.K.] slept on the couch. [S.K.] bought bunk beds for the boys and [C.S.] had the bed. There was curtain between the two beds. The children were then 13, 11 and 9. These sleeping arrangements were known to DCR. [35] No home study was done by DCR until November 26, 2004 and the time frame identified in the report is May 2004 to November 2004. It identifies [S.K.] and [D.P.]’s relationship as being common law, which is denied by [S.K.]. The recommendation in the report is that [S.K.] and [D.P.]’s home be approved as an alternate care resource for the children. [36] [E.K.] was disruptive at [S.K.]’s and eventually was admitted to hospital July 12, 2004. He was being very rude to his grandmother and was hitting his siblings. The admitting diagnosis was to examine the possibility of schizophrenia and anti-social behaviour. [E.K.] reported having ongoing suicidal ideation without any definite plans. He also reported hearing voices instructing him to abuse his siblings physically and verbally. [E.K.] was discharged on July 16, 2004. There was insufficient evidence to support finding of schizophrenia. Medication was prescribed. [37] October 20, 2004, [E.K.] was once again admitted to hospital after reporting to school counsellor that he had thoughts of suicide. The reports provided by the school at that time reflected young man with aggressive and disturbing actions involving knives and scissors. He was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder and was discharged October 27, 2004. He continued on medication. [38] [E.K.] remained at [S.K.]’s until April 2005 when he was placed at SIGN group home in Yorkton. This was home equipped to handle challenging kids with significant acting out behaviour. In Yorkton, he did very well with his day to day functioning such as daily chores, waking for school and doing laundry. He attended the Yorkton Regional Highschool. He attended counselling at Yorkton Mental Health. He was involved in soccer and started Air Cadets in the fall of 2005. He attended regularly and was very proud of what he was achieving by attending Air Cadets. He returned to [S.K.]’s twice month on weekends. However, due to complaints which were ultimately not substantiated, [E.K.] was removed summarily from this home by Linda Fraser, DCR worker. [E.K.] had no notice that this was going to happen and he was not even given the opportunity to say goodbye to his new friends. This was very upsetting to [E.K.]. No apology or explanation has ever been extended to [E.K.]. [39] [E.K.] was placed in foster home in Estevan just before Christmas in 2005. Until September of 2006 he spent his weekends with [S.K.]. However, [E.K.] took [D.P.]’s car without permission and was in an accident with it and is at present no longer welcome in [S.K.]’s home. [E.K.]’s 16th birthday was November 8, 2006. [E.K.]’s clearly expressed intention was to return home to his parents at that point. [40] [J.S.] has essentially remained with [S.K.] since the apprehension. [41] [J.S.] is attending Hillcrest School and is now in Grade 8. [S.K.] describes [J.S.] as being nervous, anxious, sensitive little boy. She says he has always been shy, but over the past couple of years he has started to become more open and he has lots of friends. [42] [S.K.] says the court proceedings and the involvement of DCR in his life are very difficult for him. Every day that he goes to school he is afraid that DCR will come and take him away again. He wants to be left alone and he is anxious and nervous. In the past he rubbed and clapped his hands when he was nervous. This habit disappeared for while, but reappeared when DCR came and took him away to foster home in December of 2005. [43] [J.S.] loves to watch sports. He is not comfortable participating, but he enjoys watching baseball and hockey on TV. [44] [C.S.] remained with [S.K.], with the exception of one weekend in foster care, until February of 2006 when she was placed by DCR with [T.K.]’s brother [D,]. [D.] lived with his girlfriend [T. 1] at the time. [45] [S.K.] says she has always been willing to care for [J.S.] and [C.S.], and that she did not want the children to be separated. She said they were very emotionally attached to each other. [46] But in about December of 2005, DCR decided that [S.K.]’s apartment was too small for both children. [S.K.] was contacted by Linda Fraser who indicated that they were looking into persons of sufficient interest for [J.S.] and [C.S.]. [S.K.] said she and [D.P.] asked Ms. Fraser for little more time to figure out how they could keep the children together and care for them. They also asked DCR for little more financial help but they were refused. One of the problems for [S.K.] was that her employment was connected to the apartment in which they lived. [47] [D.P.] and [S.K.] begged Linda Fraser to give them little more time and not to tell the children anything before Christmas. But Ms. Fraser refused to delay anything. She told [D.P.] and [S.K.] it would be done and that was it. She gave [S.K.] day to bring the children into the office to meet the foster parents. [48] Ms. Fraser talked to the children and both [J.S.] and [C.S.] were very upset and crying. They were in shock. It spoiled their Christmas. They were taken to foster home for two days, from December 28 to 30 for pre-placement visits and then returned to [S.K.]’s on the understanding that the children would be returning to foster care. [49] Ultimately, [J.S.] remained with [S.K.] and [C.S.] left. [S.K.] said she realized that DCR would not permit her to keep both children, but they would permit her to keep one child. She said she could not make the decision, so [C.S.] made it. [S.K.] said [C.S.] is tough little girl and she said she would be the one to go. But she was thinking it was only for short time. [50] [J.S.] is now even more terrified of social workers. He thinks that if he does something wrong he will have to go to foster home. Each night he says “I was good today, wasn’t I? I’m not going anywhere am I?” [51] [C.S.]’s placement with [D.] was not successful. [C.S.] was not happy at [D.]’s. She reported that she was consistently left alone and that [T. 1] did not permit her to have friends over. [C.S.] overheard [T. 1] telling [D.] that he better send her to foster care or [T. 1] would strangle her. [C.S.] was frightened. [D.] and [T. 1] packed up [C.S.]’s clothes and without notice to anyone, took her over to [T.K.]’s brother [S.]’s house. [S.K.] has not spoken to [D.] since because of their treatment of [C.S.]. [52] This was not placement approved by DCR and they did not know about it initially. When they did know, they were made aware that [C.S.] was sleeping on the floor, because the Department had not approved any funds for [S.] and [T. 2]. This situation continued for some time. [53] [S.K.] says when [C.S.] stayed with her she had concerns about her health. She was very picky eater, was underweight and [S.K.] was concerned. [C.S.] continued to say she wanted to go home to her mom and dad. [54] [S.K.] says [C.S.] is very unhappy, upset, confused and angry inside. [55] Apparently [S.] is not prepared to be long-term resource for [C.S.] either. DCR is currently looking for foster home for her, although she was still with [S.] at the time of the hearing. THE PARENTS [56] [K.S.] did not take any part in the proceedings, so the information about him comes from others, either directly or from reports filed in evidence. [57] [K.S.] is 38 years old. His father is deceased and he has no relationship with his mother. He has five siblings, and is in contact with two of them. Alcohol became problem for [K.S.] when he was teenager. He has nine criminal convictions involving drinking and driving. He has attended some treatment programs in the past for alcohol addiction and according to [T.K.], he is currently not drinking. [58] [K.S.] has Grade education, plus he has all the safety tickets required for work in the oil field. He has extensive experience in the oil field and has, in the past, been good provider for his family. [59] There have been ongoing concerns about domestic violence between [T.K.] and [K.S.]. [T.K.] has testified that [K.S.] did not abuse her. But others report concern in this regard. [60] [S.K.] believes this has been longstanding problem. [S.K.] says there is quite difference in [K.S.] when he is not drinking. She has observed great deal of affection between [K.S.] and the children when he is sober. [61] In December of 2005, [K.S.] came to [S.K.]’s apartment looking for [T.K.]. [S.K.] said she was not there. Later [S.K.] and [D.P.] went to pick up [T.K.], after receiving call from [T.K.]’s brother [S.]t. [T.K.] was outside the motel where she and [K.S.] were staying. She did not have coat, had bag of her clothes with her and was holding her head. She reported that [K.S.] had hit her. [T.K.] stayed with them for the night and went home with [K.S.] the next day. [62] [S.K.] reports that [K.S.] has not been drinking at least since the spring of 2006. She has seen all three children being very close to him. [63] [T.K.] was born April 4, 1971. She describes her own childhood as being unhappy. Her parents separated when she was approximately five years old. Following this her mother [S.K.] began to drink to excess. According to [T.K.], she was subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of [S.K.]’s male companions, and to neglect because [S.K.] was always out drinking. [T.K.] began relationship with [K.S.] which continues to the present. The relationship between [T.K.] and [S.K.] continues to be difficult. [64] [E.K.] was born in 1990 when [T.K.] was 19 years old and [J.S.] was born in 1992. By 1994 [T.K.] was pregnant with [C.S.]. According to Bonnie Brooks, departmental worker, there were problems of domestic violence between [T.K.] and [K.S.] in 1994. [T.K.] was also having some difficulty parenting two young boys, while being pregnant with [C.S.]. parent aide was placed in the home to assist. Ms. Brooks believes her involvement at this time would have come through the police. However, [K.S.] was found not guilty of the charge of assault laid at this time. [K.S.] was drinking at this time. The file was closed in November 1994 because there was no indication of ongoing domestic violence and things appeared to be calmer. [65] [T.K.] was stay-at-home mom at the time of the apprehension. She found the apprehension to be extremely upsetting, as she felt she was good mother and she had devoted herself to caring for her children. She did acknowledge that she was having problems with [E.K.]. [66] When [T.K.] was notified of the apprehension, she was very upset. She said she did not beat her children, she was not drug user and she was not an alcoholic. Her home was bright and clean and the children were well-groomed and well-dressed when apprehended. At this time, [T.K.] stayed in the home to care for the children, and [K.S.] was away from home quite bit working in the oil industry. Mental Health [67] Following the children’s apprehension, [T.K.] had mental health difficulties. There is some conflict in the evidence about whether these problems pre-existed the children’s apprehension. Apparently [S.K.] told DCR when the children were apprehended that [T.K.] had some mental health issues. However in her evidence at the trial, [S.K.] says [T.K.] did not have these problems until the children were taken away from her. The only records filed by DCR concerning mental health admissions for [T.K.] post date the children’s apprehension, although some of the records refer to some pre-existing problems. [T.K.] testified that she had never been admitted to hospital for drug overdose or for self mutilation until after her children were taken away from her. She testified that her children were everything to her and when they were taken away she gave up. She was concerned because nothing was being resolved, and court was being put off again and again. [68] When she first sought help through the mental health system she was told her problems arose from the fact she was an alcoholic. As [T.K.] did not drink, she did not accept this diagnosis and did not continue with mental health counselling for time. [69] The following is history of [T.K.]’s mental health issues presented at the trial: June 9, 2004, [T.K.] saw Dr. Banerjee, who described her having life long problem of short fuse and impulse control. She had previously been advised to take an anger management program and on this occasion she appeared to be very willing to do so. Rod Watson was contacted to set up an appointment; June 25, 2004, [S.K.] called Ida Barnabas, child and youth psychologist to report that [T.K.] had some pills with her and that she had ongoing suicidal thoughts; [T.K.] was admitted to hospital July 10, 2004 having taken 15 Advil Migraine relief medication with alcohol in an attempt to commit suicide. She reported being depressed. She discharged herself and then sought to be admitted to the Regina Psychiatric Unit; August 3, 2004, [T.K.] was brought to hospital by ambulance after taking 24 extra strength allergy and sinus medication. She was reported to have said that she did not want to wake up. [T.K.] was discharged from hospital August 6, 2004 with an appointment to see Dr. Banerjee for follow-up; September 4, 2004, [T.K.] was admitted into hospital as she was agitated and feeling suicidal; October 7, 2004, [T.K.] went to the Emergency Department and locked herself in the bathroom, wanting an admission to the Weyburn Mental Health Centre. She was seen in the Emergency Department and was sedated. At her own insistence she was admitted for brief period to permit her to settle down emotionally. She was discharged October 13, 2004. She was diagnosed with situational stress and borderline personality. At her request she was referred to Mr. Watson for anger management. She saw Mr. Watson twice while in hospital and was then discharged to continue counselling as an outpatient at Estevan Mental Health Clinic; October 18, 2004, [T.K.] was hospitalized reporting insomnia, anxiety, depressive feelings and suicidal thoughts. She remained in hospital until November 1, 2004. [T.K.] presented herself to the Emergency Ward of the hospital on November 3, 2004 with concerns that she may be reacting to the medication prescribed on November 1. This hospital report reflects that [T.K.] is bipolar, however this diagnosis had not previously appeared on any of the documentation submitted. [T.K.] remained in hospital until November 5, when [K.S.] came to get her and she discharged herself; In November 2004, [T.K.] went to the Emergency Department at St. Joseph’s Hospital seeking admission to hospital. [T.K.] made superficial cuts to her wrists, then locked herself in the bathroom and attempted to strangle herself with sheet. She was very agitated; December 1, 2004, [T.K.] was brought to the Emergency Department by the police as she had superficial cuts to her wrist; January 2, 2005, [T.K.] was admitted to hospital with suicidal ideation. She was admitted again on January 12, 2005; [T.K.] was admitted on February 24, 2005, to the Saskatchewan Hospital, North Battleford and was discharged March 18, 2005. [T.K.] had been referred by Dr. Banerjee for intensive psychiatric rehabilitation. While in hospital her most prominent symptom was anxiety, with some minor depression. She showed no self harming behaviours. The final recommendation was that the treatment most likely to stabilize her would be psychotherapy to address relationship issues and past sexual abuse, coupled with an antidepressant/mood stabilizer combination to normalize her affective range; September 19, 2005, [T.K.] was admitted to the Weyburn Mental Health Centre from the Emergency Department of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Estevan. [T.K.] had been taken to the emergency by the RCMP after multiple linear cuts had been inflicted by herself as an act of self mutilation. Apparently she had been drinking and cut herself with broken beer bottle. She was discharged on September 22, 2005. She was assessed as being very noncompliant. She does not want to undergo counselling or any other treatments suggested to her. [70] It appears that [T.K.]’s mental health has stabilized over the past year. She is taking an anti-depressant medication which appears to be working for her. There have been no further hospital admissions. DCR (Linda Fraser) seems satisfied that [T.K.] has dealt with her mental health issues. Living Arrangements [71] There was variety of evidence about [T.K.]’s living arrangements over the past few years. At the time of the apprehension she and [K.S.] were living in an apartment. Later it appears they went to Alberta where [K.S.] was working. They returned and at about that time [K.S.] went to jail for earlier offences. There is evidence that for some time [K.S.] and [T.K.] were living in motel and later in their truck. They also stayed in tent. [S.K.] let them sleep in an empty apartment for while and then in the sauna room of the apartment. [T.K.] worked at motel in exchange for room to sleep in for the night. Now [T.K.] and [K.S.] have an apartment, and [T.K.] is employed. [K.S.] is looking for work. [T.K.] and [K.S.] have been receiving some assistance from Social Services since August 1, 2006. [T.K.] and [K.S.] [72] [T.K.] testified that the relationship between her and [K.S.] has changed. She testified that in the past she instigated arguments with [K.S.] because he was away for long periods of time at work and she was home 24 hours per day. She felt alone, isolated and angry. Even though he was good provider for their material needs, she was not happy. She concentrated on making the home perfect place for the children, but she needed more. [73] Since the apprehension of the children, they have gotten closer to each other. They talk about what they could have done differently. She says they no longer argue about small things. She says he was supportive when she was in hospital. He did not understand her, but he did not judge her and he was there for her. [74] [T.K.] acknowledges that alcohol was problem for [K.S.]. But she says he is no longer drinking and that he has not been drinking for about year. He has taken some alcohol treatment in the past, but he does not feel it is too helpful for him. [75] [T.K.] also acknowledges that domestic violence has been problem in the past. However she takes responsibility for the violence. She says she argued with him. She says there was some name calling, pushing and lot of yelling. She denies that he struck her or that she struck him. She says [K.S.] has gone to anger management counselling, but says he did not stay long. [76] Now, [T.K.] says they do things together. There is no physical violence—no hitting. [77] [T.K.] describes the children’s relationship with [K.S.]. She says [C.S.] is daddy’s little girl. [J.S.] is shy but smart. He needs lot more attention and has always received lot more from everybody. He needs help even making sure his shirt is on correctly. [J.S.] likes to stay home and play Nintendo and watch movies. Now he is happy to show [K.S.] his computer and is enjoying the new bike [K.S.] has purchased for him. [E.K.] and [K.S.] also have good relationship. [E.K.] wants to come home. [T.K.] and the Children [78] [T.K.] says [E.K.] is welcome to come home but that he will have to work and go to school. He will have curfew. [T.K.] acknowledges that [J.S.] is happy where he is. She would like to see him come home at some point, but only when he is ready. Even though she still has issues with [S.K.], she recognizes that [S.K.] has provided stable home for [J.S.] and that he is settled there. [79] [T.K.] wants [C.S.] to come home and says [C.S.] wants to come home. [T.K.] says she is prepared and [K.S.] is prepared to provide good and safe home for [C.S.]. [C.S.] has experienced no stability in her life since her apprehension. She was removed from her home and placed with her grandmother. She was removed from [S.K.] against her wishes, separated from [J.S.], with whom she has strong connection and placed with [D.] and [T. 1]. This was not positive placement for her and even placed her in position where she was physically afraid, because of [T. 1]’s comments. While she was there she did not feel that she was cared for. She was left alone. This placement ended when she was unceremoniously packed up and left with [S.] and [T. 2]. They were not ready for her, did not really want her and even had her sleep on the floor for time when she arrived. She was provided with second-hand clothes and was not made to feel welcome. They have made it clear that they are not prepared to keep her over the long-term as DCR is looking for foster home for her. [C.S.]’s best interests have not been safeguarded during this process. [80] [T.K.] says she is prepared to do anything to have her children back. If [K.S.] refuses to do anything required of him, she will separate from him so his refusal does not prevent her from having the children with her. [81] Parental Services Agreement was signed by DCR and [T.K.] and [K.S.] on June 8, 2004. The conditions were as follows: [T.K.] and [K.S.] agreed to work co‑operatively with Christa Dacio by maintaining regular phone contact and home visits; [T.K.] and [K.S.] agreed to work co-operatively with Family Support worker ten hours week on tasks outlined by the caseworker and family; [T.K.] agreed she would have mental health assessment with follow-up counselling and treatment including but not limited to anger management; [K.S.] agreed to have an addictions’ assessment and follow all recommendations arising out of that assessment including treatment if directed; [K.S.] agreed to attend sessions at Alternatives to Violence and both [K.S.] and [T.K.] agreed to make contact with the relevant agencies by June 22, 2004. [82] Ms. Dacio was not involved with this matter after June 9, 2004. [T.K.] testified that she was not informed when Ms. Dacio left. [T.K.] says she did go to the violence intervention program and did go to mental health after this agreement was signed. She does not believe that [K.S.] followed through with his obligations under the agreement. He was working in Alberta quite bit during this time period. [83] By September of 2004, Bonnie Brooks was the case worker on this file. She said that after the pre-trial in September of 2004, Parental Services Agreement was entered into between DCR and [T.K.]. The term of the Agreement was September 15, 2004 to November 17, 2004. The intended outcome was that [E.K.], [J.S.] and [C.S.]’s safety and well-being would be ensured. [T.K.] agreed to work co‑operatively with Bonnie Brooks by maintaining regular phone contact and home visits. [T.K.] agreed to work co-operatively with family support worker and to notify DCR immediately of any change in living arrangements. [T.K.] agreed to attend counselling either with Mental Health or the Victim Intervention Program (“VIP”). [T.K.] agreed to initiate contact with either agency by September 20, 2004. [T.K.] reported being separated from [K.S.] at this time. [84] The plan was to have the two younger children living full-time with [T.K.] by the end of the agreement. [E.K.] would remain with [S.K.]. The plan was for [E.K.] to eventually return home as well. [85] The plan was not successful because in mid-October [T.K.] was hospitalized for depression and with threats of suicide. This was surprise to Ms. Brooks because the children were coming slowly back to the home. [T.K.] was in and out of the hospital over the next couple of months. [T.K.] testified she was going to Mental Health at this time, but that it was not helping her with her problems. [86] The plan was never re-instituted because [K.S.] and [T.K.] reconciled. DCR took the position that [K.S.] would have to be part of the plan and sobriety for him for period of six months was considered to be important. [T.K.] said he would not co‑operate with this. [87] In February of 2005, [T.K.] went to the hospital in North Battleford to deal with her addiction to sleeping pills. She left after one week, having been able to successfully quit taking the pills. [88] Linda Fraser took over the file August 29, 2005. Her first contact with [T.K.] was December 2005. She says she told [S.K.] that her door was open for [T.K.], but [T.K.] did not call. She understood at that time that mental health was an issue. [89] [T.K.] identified that she had some personal issues with Linda Fraser. Apparently they were known to each other on personal level and [T.K.] found it difficult to share her personal issues with Ms. Fraser. This was brought out by [T.K.] in her cross-examination of Ms. Fraser who acknowledged she knew [D.P.], [S.], [T. 1], [T.K.] and [S.K.] on personal level. [90] Ms. Fraser frequently questioned [S.K.] about [T.K.] and [K.S.]’s whereabouts and whether they had seen the children. [S.K.] was concerned that if she disclosed that [T.K.] had seen the children, they might be taken away from her. The children had the same fear. Ms. Fraser went to the children’s school and interviewed them for the purpose of determining if they had seen [T.K.] and [K.S.]. [91] On one occasion Ms. Fraser gained access to the apartment building pretending to be making delivery at [S.K.]’s home. She attempted to justify this behaviour by saying she did have papers to deliver, but find this was clearly for the purpose of surprising [S.K.] to see if [T.K.] was there. Ms. Fraser indicated that she was concerned about [T.K.] going to her mother’s home to see the children. The reason for this concern is not immediately apparent as DCR’s position seems to be that it was not opposed to [T.K.] seeing the children, it just did not want [T.K.] living with the children. [92] Ms. Fraser acknowledged leaving letter for [S.K.] dated December 30, 2005 in which she advised that the children would be taken to foster care on January 3, 2006. The letter was left at about 6:30 p.m. on Friday, December 30 and the office was not open again until January 3, the day the children were to be taken. She further acknowledged that [S.K.] and [D.P.] came to the office, crying and begging for the children to be permitted to remain with them. She confirmed that the Department refused to provide any additional financial assistance to [S.K.] and refused to provide any childcare. [S.K.] received $270.00 per month per child. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [93] DCR recommended, and ordered that [E.K.] be committed to the Minister to age 16. After that point DCR would be in position to offer him services pursuant to s. 10 of the Act. [94] This permits [E.K.] to return home to [T.K.] and [K.S.] which is acceptable to [T.K.]. [95] DCR recommended and [T.K.] agreed that [J.S.] should remain with [S.K.] as P.S.I. for an indefinite period. [S.K.] is also in agreement with having [J.S.] remain with her. DCR recommend that some conditions be imposed which are the following: (a) [J.S.] will attend for mental health counselling and [S.K.] shall follow any recommendations which are made by the professionals; (b) Access to [J.S.] by [K.S.] will be supervised by [S.K.] or another responsible adult; (c) [S.K.] will work with any family support worker or similar service provided to her by DCR; (d) [J.S.] shall not be returned to [T.K.] or [K.S.] by [S.K.] without further order of the court. [96] [T.K.] foresees at some point in the future that [J.S.] could return home as well, but acknowledges that the time is not now. (1) The Department [97] DCR recommends that an order be made pursuant to subsection 37(3) of the Act placing [C.S.] in the custody of the Minister until she attains the age of 18 years. [98] Although DCR is not recommending temporary order it would suggest the following conditions if one were to be made: (a) [T.K.] will obtain mental health assessment as arranged for by DCR or by [T.K.]’s family physician; (b) [T.K.] will participate in the Victim Intervention Program (VIP); (c) [T.K.] will work and communicate with DCR in developing case plan which will include visits at the apartment. [99] [T.K.] wants [C.S.] to be returned to her care. [100] The provisions of the Act contemplate two-stage inquiry which has been described by McIntyre J. in Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. E.K.S., D.W. and D.S. (1996), 1996 CanLII 7131 (SK QB), 146 Sask. R. 46 (Q.B.) As follows: [40] In child protection hearings it is two step process. First, there must be determination pursuant to s. 36(1) as to whether the child is in need of protection as that term is defined in s. 11. If it is determined that child is in need of protection the next step is to determine the appropriate order among the options contained in s. 37. He continued at para. 41 to discuss what the Court must consider on the first stage of this inquiry: [41] In determining whether child is in need of protection pursuant to any of the grounds enumerated in s. 11, Baynton, J., in Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. S.E. and E.E., 1992 CanLII 8071 (SK QB), [1992] W.W.R. 289 (Sask. U.F.C.) at p. 296 states: “... [T]he issue is not whether the children might be better off, or happier, or obtain better upbringing in the care of other ‘parents’ than with their natural parents. If that were the criterion for protection order, not many children would remain with their natural parents. The issue, however, really is whether the children concerned are receiving level of parenting care that is below the minimal standard that will be tolerated in our society...” [101] am satisfied that at the time of the apprehension, [E.K.] had suffered from physical harm. The evidence is unclear as to the regularity of the infliction of this harm, and as to whether it had ever extended to the other children. But given [T.K.]’s apparent stress, and isolation at the time would consider the other children to be at risk. In addition, I am satisfied the children were exposed to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony. [102] [T.K.] has done her best to discount or minimize any domestic violence between herself and [K.S.] and has attempted to assume any blame arising out of such conduct. However, am satisfied by her evidence, [S.K.]’s evidence and the statements made to DCR and the police by the children that they were exposed to severe domestic disharmony. [K.S.]’s excessive consumption of alcohol exacerbated this problem. [103] Following the children’s apprehension things spiralled out of control for [T.K.] and for [K.S.]. [104] There is significant concern here with the passage of time before resolution of these matters. In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1994] S.C.R. 165, Justice L’Heureux-Dubé discussed the importance of reaching speedy resolution in matters affecting children. At p. 206 of that decision, she states: ... The Act requires it and common sense dictates it. few months in the life of child, as compared to that of adults, may acquire great significance. Years go by crystallizing situations that become irreversible.... Chief Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada also spoke of this in Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., 2000 SCC 48 (CanLII), [2000] S.C.R. 519 at para. 124. There she emphasized that “... child’s need for continuity in relationships provides the most compelling basis for requiring prompt post‑apprehension hearing....” [105] Matters did not move quickly once the children were in the care of DCR. [T.K.] identified this as big issue for her. The history of the deterioration of her mental health and her numerous admissions into health facilities following the apprehension of her children is some evidence of her concerns. The evidence is equivocal as to whether any of these conditions pre-existed the apprehension. The fact that the children were placed by DCR with [S.K.], person with whom [T.K.] had significant issues tracing back to her childhood did not assist the process for [T.K.]. Instead of working with DCR to ensure a smooth reintegration of the children into their home, [T.K.] and [K.S.] vacated their apartment, moved to Alberta for a while, lived in a series of motels, camped at [S.K.]’s apartment building and even lived in a tent. During that period of time, some of which encompassed the trial, I am not satisfied that there was an adult person who was willing and able to provide for the children’s needs. [106] Based on the circumstances at the time of the apprehension and currently, I am satisfied that the children are in need of protection within the meaning of s. 11 of the Act. [107] Having made that determination, now turn to the second stage of the inquiry. Here, the Court must concern itself with the best interests of the children within the meaning of s. of the Act, and decide first whether any of the options set forth in subsection 37(1) are appropriate. In Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. E.K.S., D.W. and C.S., supra, McIntyre J. set out five principles, which he takes from the legislation and jurisprudence, which provide guidance when deciding the appropriateness of any of the options. At pp. 54-56 he sets out the following principles: 1. The welfare of the child is the paramount (but not the sole) consideration. The wishes of the parent must be given independent subordinate weight. The weight will depend on the circumstances in each case. (R. v. (Saskatchewan) Minister of Social Services, 1974 CanLII 959 (SK QB), [1974] W.W.R. 388, at 393 (Sask. Q.B.)). 2. Section 37(4)(a) does not declare that only the best interests of the child shall be considered. The implication is that the court may be mindful of other matters. As well, the list in s. is not exhaustive in determining the best interests of the child. (Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. R.G. (1990), 1990 CanLII 7428 (SK QB), 88 Sask. R. 262 (U.F.C.)). 3. Any determination made must be in the context of the objective of the Act, set out in s. 3. (M.A.C. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) (1993), 1993 CanLII 9025 (SK QB), 110 Sask. R. 81; 46 R.F.L. (3d) 174 (Q.B.)). 4. The court may consider the recommendation of the officer (representative of the Department) but is not bound thereby. 5. The court, having determined the child to be in need of protection, has determined that the level of parenting care is below the minimum tolerated by society. Therefore, in determining whether an order under s. 37(1) is appropriate, including conditions which could be attached, the court must be satisfied either: (a) The parent or parents have altered his or her ways such that the circumstances which gave rise to the determination that the child was in need of protection no longer exist, or (b) The court is satisfied that there is realistic plan or reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the necessary changes can occur within reasonable time whereby the children can be safely returned to the care of their parent or parents. [108] So, in determining the appropriateness of an order under subsection 37(1) of the Act, consideration must be given to the welfare and best interests of [J.S.] and [C.S.], the recommendations of the Minister, the objectives of the legislation, and to lesser extent, the wishes of the parents. In terms of [J.S.], given the position taken by DCR and by [T.K.] with respect to him staying with [S.K.], the only issue will consider is what, if any, conditions will be imposed. [109] In terms of [C.S.], if an order is made that she will be returned to her parents either now or in the future, there must be realistic expectation that the circumstances which placed her at risk no longer exist or can be ameliorated within reasonable period of time. As stated in Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. A.J. and C.J. (1987), 1987 CanLII 4660 (SK CA), 58 Sask. R. 246 (C.A.) at para. [24] However, the following is self-evident. Where, as here, children have been placed into the temporary custody of the Minister, and the parents wish to have the children returned to them, they must make efforts to improve or remove the conditions or circumstances in the home which have resulted in the children being taken from the parents.... [110] McIntyre J., in Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. E.K.S., D.W. and C.S., supra, also said the following at p. 55: [50] The court must look at various factors including (without meaning to be exhaustive of the possibilities) any changes in circumstance or conduct of the parent that has occurred or is proposed, any plan of corrective action that is being advanced, the nature of any resources suggested and the time frames which may be involved. The options in ss. 37(1) are premised upon reasonable prospect of change, within reasonable length of time and reasonable use of resources if needed. [111] I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of change within a reasonable period of time, and that changes have already occurred. Apparently [K.S.] has quit drinking. His consumption of alcohol was contributing factor to the domestic disharmony. [T.K.] is now employed. She testified that the fact that she stayed home all of the time at about the time of the apprehension also contributed to the domestic disharmony. [112] [K.S.] has attended some anger management programming flowing from his criminal conviction. [T.K.] says that in addition, she and [K.S.] have grown closer as result of the apprehension of the children. She says they are able to communicate better and are prepared to work together for the return of the children. [T.K.] denies there is currently any domestic disharmony or domestic violence. [113] In the event that [K.S.] is not prepared to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, [T.K.] has decided that she will leave him, so that his presence will not impede her ability to be re-united with her children. [114] [T.K.] and [K.S.] have residence and [T.K.] has the stability of job. [K.S.] is seeking employment. At the moment he does not have driver’s licence which impedes his ability to work, but he will be eligible to re-acquire his licence on his birthday. [115] [T.K.] is currently taking medication which promotes the continuation of her mental health. DCR acknowledges that there are no current issues with [T.K.]’s mental health and that there have not been for some time. [116] There have been ongoing issues between DCR and [T.K.] with respect to her unwillingness to stay in contact with them and work with them. [T.K.] has deep‑seated and long-standing issues with DCR and an essential distrust of their workers. [T.K.] feels she was not protected when she was child and as result was subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of [S.K.]’s male companions. In 2003 when [E.K.] mutilated bird [T.K.] does not feel he was offered any counselling or help. And when [J.S.] was sexually assaulted by someone associated with [S.K.], DCR did not become involved even after the matter was reported, and in fact they then placed her children with [S.K.] without any further investigation of the suitability of the placement. And finally, [T.K.] felt unwilling to engage with Linda Fraser on very personal matters involving her children, given that she had previously had personal relationship with Ms. Fraser. As she described it, it just did not seem right to be in the bar with Ms. Fraser at one time and to be required to share personal issues in her office the next time. Ms. Fraser confirmed that she had interacted socially with [T.K.], her brothers and with [S.K.] in the past. She did not, however, feel that this interfered with her ability to manage [T.K.]’s case in the system. [117] Even with all of these issues, [T.K.] says she is prepared to work with DCR to ensure the return of her children. accept that she will do this, however, find myself sympathetic to [T.K.]’s disinclination to work with Ms. Fraser. expect that the success of the involvement of DCR in the life of this family would be enhanced with the assignment of another worker. Ms. Fraser may feel that her personal involvement with this family has not impeded her ability to work with this family. This is not view shared by [T.K.], and it has worked to [T.K.]’s detriment. ORDERS [118] I find that [J.S.] is in need of protection and that he shall be placed with [S.K.] for an indefinite period. [J.S.] shall be encouraged to attend for mental health counselling and [S.K.] shall follow any recommendations which are made by the professionals consulted. [S.K.] shall work with any family support worker or similar service provided to her by DCR. [J.S.] shall not be returned to live with [T.K.] or [K.S.] by [S.K.] without a further order of the Court. This does not prevent [J.S.] from spending unsupervised time with [T.K.] and [K.S.], including overnight visits. [119] I find that [C.S.] is in need of protection and that she shall remain in the custody of the Minister for a period of three months. During that time [T.K.] and [K.S.] shall work co-operatively with and communicate with DCR to develop a case plan for [C.S.]’s return. This will include home visits at their apartment which should commence as soon as possible. [T.K.] and [K.S.] will work co-operatively with any family support worker provided for their assistance by DCR. [T.K.] will have a mental health assessment as arranged for by DCR or by her family doctor and will follow any recommendations of the mental health professional. T.K.] will participate in the Victim Intervention Program (VIP). [K.S.] will attend any sessions at Alternatives to Violence arranged for by DCR.
The Department of Community Resources (DCR) seeks orders pursuant to The Child and Family Services Act (the Act) placing CS with the Department until age 18 pursuant to s. 37(2) and JS with his grandmother as a Person of Sufficient Interest pursuant to s. 37(1)(b). With respect to EK the Department seeks an order placing him with the Minister until his 16th birthday. This order was granted at trial. The parents do not oppose the applications with respect to JS and EK but the mother seeks the return of CS to her care. HELD: JS is in need of protection and he shall be placed with SK for an indefinite period. JS shall not be returned to live with his parents without a further order of this Court. This does not prevent JS from spending unsupervised time with his parents including overnight visits. CS is in need of protection and she shall remain in the custody of the Minister for a period of 3 months. During that time, the parents shall work with DCR to develop a case plan for CS's return. TK will have a mental health assessment as arranged for by DCR and will follow any recommendations of the mental health professional and participate in the Victim Intervention Program. KS will attend any session at Alternatives to Violence arranged for by DCR. 1) The Court was satisfied that the children were exposed to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony. 2) Matters did not move quickly once the children were placed in the care of DCR. Instead of working with DCR to ensure a smooth reintegration of the children into their home, the parents vacated their apartment, moved to Alberta for a while, lived in a series of motels, camped at SK's apartment building and even lived in a tent. During that period of time, some of which encompassed the trial, the Court was not satisfied that there was an adult person who was willing and able to provide for the children's needs. The children are in need of protection within the meaning of s. 11 of the Act. 3) There is a reasonable prospect of change within a reasonable period of time. KS has quit drinking. TK is now employed. KS has attended some anger management programming flowing from his criminal conviction. The parents have a residence. TK is taking medication which promotes the continuation of her mental health. DCR acknowledged that there are no current issues with TK's mental health and that have not been for some time. TK says she is prepared to work with DCR to ensure the return of her children. The Court accepts TK's disinclination to work with Ms. Fraser. The success of the involvement of DCR in the life of this family would be enhanced with the assignment of another worker.