A Nova Scotia mother who had already seen nine of her children placed in the care of others has lost permanent custody of a tenth child.
The mother is identified only by the initials GR in a new decision from the family division of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. The child in question, identified as N, was taken into the temporary care of the minister of community services at birth and has lived with a foster family ever since.
“The legislative deadline has passed, and I am left with only two options: place N in the permanent care of the minister or return her to GR,” Justice Pamela Marche said in a written decision out of Sydney, Cape Breton, dated Nov. 13.
“I am unable to safely return N to GR’s care. I am satisfied it is in N’s best interest to be placed in the permanent care of the minister.”
The judge left it up to Community Services to arrange a final visit between the child and its biological mother.
“GR has a significant history of child protection involvement,” Marche said.
Her three oldest children were placed in the care of grandparents. In 2010, another was placed in the permanent care of the province. The same thing happened the next year for a fifth child. Four others, including one that had been placed with grandparents earlier, went the same route in 2018, as did a ninth child in 2020.
Lawyers for Nova Scotia’s Community Services Minister Brendan Maguire argued N “should not be returned to GR because the risk of harm has not been sufficiently reduced and N remains in need of protective services,” said the decision.
“The minister argues GR has mental health and substance abuse issues that negatively impact her ability to parent. The minister is also concerned about family violence. Overall, the minister believes GR has limited understanding of the risk because of her refusal to acknowledge, let alone remediate, protection concerns.”
The mother “has a history of trauma which impacts her ability to make good parenting decisions,” said the judge’s decision.
“Despite multiple contested hearings, including unsuccessful appeals, GR continues to maintain there are no concerns with her ability to parent.”
The mom has completed “programming related to parenting, healthy relationships and anger management in the past,” said the decision.
“The minister describes GR as resistant to child protection intervention and points to her refusal to complete an intake appointment with Mental Health and Addiction Services or to participate in mental health counselling, as indicative of ongoing risk.”
The mom’s denial that she has an alcohol problem concerns the minister, it said. “The minister argues GR admitted to drinking during her pregnancy and refused to stop drinking, contrary to court order, through much of this proceeding. The minister also relies on the report of a case aide who reported GR may have been snorting drugs during transport from an access visit with N.”
There have been “several incidents of violence, one involving alcohol, during (Community Services’) current involvement with GR. One incident left GR’s face severely bruised and swollen. Another incident occurred when the children of GR’s sister were present.”
Community Services “argues that GR was not consistent in exercising access to N. GR missed a substantial number of visits and, as a result, the minister cut back the number of weekly visits.”
There’s a plan in the works for N to be adopted.
The mother – who “says she no longer drinks and smokes weed only occasionally” – told the court she wanted N back, or her cousin to adopt the child. “She believes the minister holds a grudge against her and has been unfair in their assessment of her.”
The mom testified she was “denied the opportunity to demonstrate sobriety through drug and alcohol testing. She strongly disagrees with the suggestion that she was sniffing a crushed pill during transport from an access visit.”
The mother “acknowledges she has, on occasion, missed scheduled visits with N but only for good reason such as illness or court attendance. GR argues the minister acted unfairly in cutting back her weekly access visits and failing to arrange for make up time.”
The mom disagreed with Community Services’ “assertion that she has not attended services or programs to address risk. She argues that she participated in a family support case plan, addressing culturally relevant topics relating to parenting and healthy relationships and she participated in a healing circle. GR reports that she has also read books which she says have been more helpful to her than services offered in a group setting. She says much of the programming requested of her by the minister is repetitive.”
The mother, who is Mi’kmaq, argued it would be in N’s “best interest to be returned to her care and raised within their Mi’kmaq culture,” said the decision. “GR says she loves N very much and is willing and able to be an excellent parent to her. It is important to GR that it be known that her children are her life, and she fought hard to have them returned to her care.”
The judge was satisfied that the child remains at risk of harm if it was returned to the mother.
“GR says she has now stopped drinking,” Marche said.
“The minister chose not to cross examine GR, so I accept this evidence at face value. This, however, is a relatively recent development. GR’s position throughout much of the child protection proceeding was that she would be continuing to drink. Within this context, I find the minister’s decision not to implement random drug and alcohol testing was reasonable.”
The mom drank throughout her pregnancy, the court heard. “I accept the neonatologist who attended to N was concerned about the likelihood of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome given GR drank heavily during her pregnancy and N had trouble feeding after birth.”
Booze was also involved in a violent incident in March 2023 involving the child’s mother, aunt and father. “GR’s children were present and witnessed a car window being smashed with a baseball bat. Attending police described GR and her sister as being heavily intoxicated at the time.”
The judge had “grave concerns about the sustainability of (the mother’s) sobriety.”
The mom continues to experience violence in her life, Marche said. While she’s no longer involved with the child’s father, the judge was not satisfied “that this fact alone reduces the risk. GR has a long history of family violence which has persisted despite any programming she may have received. Long established patterns that continue to put GR in violent situations presently would also put N at substantial risk of harm if returned to GR’s care.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.