SYDNEY, N.S. — A Sydney judge has determined two children are in need of protective services because the parents are deficient in several aspects of their parenting abilities.
Supreme Court family division Justice Ken Haley ruled there was substantial risk for the children to suffer physical and emotional abuse. Further, he said, one child’s mental health issues were not being taken seriously by the parents.
The names of the parents are being withheld in order to protect the identity of the children.
In his decision released last week, Haley said both parents require the guidance and assistance of workers from the Department of Community Services to address their respective parental deficiencies.
The department filed the application to have the children deemed in need of protective services alleging the father has significant mental health issues, along with anger management issues and substance abuse problems.
The mother is the biological parent of both children while the father is the biological parent of only one of the children.
The department argued the father has difficulty coping with stressful situations and an allegation of sexual assault by one of the children against the father led him to self-medicate through drugs and alcohol.
Haley did not allow statements from one of the children concerning the sexual assault to be presented during the protection hearing.
“I find there is no proof apparent on the evidence that the father sexually abused the child. The court is not suggesting the alleged act of sexual abuse did not occur; simply put, the alleged sexual abuse was not proven to have occurred. The (department) failed to provide clear, convincing and cogent evidence in this regard,” said Haley, in his decision.
As for the mother, the department contended she tried to explain away one child’s angry outbursts and disrespecting behaviour as being typical since the child was a toddler. By being resigned to such an explanation, the department said the mother was failing to recognize and appreciate that the child’s behaviour was indicative of an emotional condition.
While commending the mother in several aspects of her parenting abilities, the department also noted she demonstrated an inability to act effectively to ensure the children were protected and that they access the service necessary for their healthy development.
The department also noted the mother said she didn’t know who to believe in relation to the allegation of sexual assault and that has hurt the child who now feels rejected by the mother.
After the allegation of sexual assault was made, the father was ordered out of the home and denied access to the stepchild and had supervised visits with his biological child. Both children were kept in the care of their mother.
Haley said there was clear evidence that the father told his stepchild he hated her.
“This is inappropriate, disturbing, shocking and frightening. No parent should address their child in this way,” said the judge.
Haley said based on the evidence presented, he found the mother to be a good mother who was trying to manage a horrific family experience. He said he sees no future risk for physical harm of the children by the mother.
However, he said, the mother did fail to recognize and appreciate that one child’s behaviour was the result of an emotional condition.
“I agree with the contention that the mother does not appear to understand the risk, that, if not remedied, the child’s emotional and behavioural issues are likely to impair her development.”
Haley said the mother was entitled to believe or not the allegation of sexual abuse but also had the responsibility to act more quickly and proactively to provide remedial support and services to the child.
The father and mother no longer have a relationship and the mother and children and continuing counselling services.
Another hearing is to be scheduled to determine the nature of the services that need to be provided to the family.
