To the Critics in Child Welfare: When you are looking at matters in the Legislative Assembly related to the Ministers Poverty Strategy, you might want to quote this case. When you read it, do so twice. Once paying attention to the Societys claims. Then read it again paying attention to the clients claims and that of her lawyer. Then notice how this mother lost her child, and all access to her child, as well as the child (who it is said has a good bond to the mother) losing access to its mother and family, simply becase of her lack of resources, financial status and feeling of sadness and feeling low. Again, read it while filtering the womans conditions through the lense of poverty and the lack of resources this person has to deal with her issues. If she were better financed (higher welfare rates or at last paid for services) she might better be able to use them. But why did she not seek the resources when she even has stated her intention to do so. Reports say she has accessed them. The Society says she refused, however they also state that she did attend many meetings and courses etc. Poverty and illness appear to have affected some of the Society recomended courses and meetings and she is admonished for this. A short quote for now but please read the entire case: (link following) [17] In the grand scheme of things, when the court considers the child’s future, I find that the disadvantages to the child, A.K.C., to maintain a relationship with T.C. will become just as apparent at trial as it is now and with respect to the parenting deficiencies, although T.C. denies the accuracy of the observations made by the various society workers which also include parenting deficiencies and her refusal to attend community resources, I accept the consistency of the evidence in the affidavits of more than one worker who provided similar observations. [18] Further, although the access visits between T.C. and her child were positive and complimentary to her, I find that they were in a controlled environment and that given the personal issues which she must now resolve, I find that as long as she is confronted by those issues, it would be very unlikely that T.C. would also be able to assume the responsibilities of a mother to the child twenty-four hours a day. [19] Although Ms. Junger is correct that the assessment provided by Dr. Hall is not a parenting capacity assessment, it does not preclude the court from coming to the conclusion based on inferences it has made from Dr. Hall’s observations. Accordingly, I find that over the passage of time, T.C. has made very little improvement in the two-year span that the child has been in care. In my opinion, it truly forecasts what the outcome of the trial is likely to be. I find that there is no realistic possibility that the child will achieve stability and security and that the child will be able to grow in an environment free of extreme angst, uncertainty and lack of parental direction and guidance due to emotional fragility of T.C. That stable environment, I find, and on the balance of probabilities, the evidence will bear out if the matter proceeds to trial, is not likely to develop within the reasonably foreseeable future while the child is under the care of T.C. [20] Accordingly, I find that there is no genuine issue for trial. There will be a finding that the child is non-native, non-Indian and non-Catholic and is in need of protection under paragraphs 37(2)(b)(i), 37(2)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act and that, therefore, there will be an order that the child be made a crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption. canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii38506/2009canlii38506.pdf
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 07:34:03 +0000