Saturday, September 01, 2012

Court Orders Case Closed - CAS Keeps File Open - Parent Files Motion to Restrain Society and to Close File



The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa has been involved with a parent in Ottawa for approximately two years. The parent complied with Society's requirements and the Society recently moved to close his file with the court.

The court ordered the Society's supervision order to be terminated and full custody of the child returned to the parent, however, since then, we have been told by the parent that the Society, through one of it's workers, Mohammed Said, a child protection worker who is not registered with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, called the parent to say that they want to come to the parent's home for a visit, to see how that child was doing, and if the parent does not comply, things won't go well for the parent and his child.

UPDATE: On the hearing date: The Court determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear this matter since the matter was already closed by an order of the court on March 20, 2012. In that order, the Society's supervision order was terminated, and custody granted to the father. Since the matter was closed, the motion this parent filed (below) did not have a matter to be filed under. However, the judge stated that she understood why the parent brought the motion forward, but indicated that it was not brought forward through the correct procedure. (further details and possible corrections will be added after discussing them with the father)


As a result, the parent has filed with the court, a motion seeking the following DECLARATIONS and ORDERS.

NOTE: Subsection 45 (8) of the CFSA prevents us from publishing the names of the parent or child while a case is open.

A DECLARATION stating that the Supervision Order granting the Society supervision over PARENT and his son CHILD has been terminated

A DECLARATION stating that the Society does not have the right to enter the home of PARENT unless authorized by a court order, or unless the Society intends to apprehend CHILD under section 40 of the Child and Family Services Act

An ORDER under Section 57.1 sub (3) restraining Mohamed Said, or any employees of the Society from entering the home of PARENT and CHILD unless authorized to do so by an order of the court, or unless authorized under section 40 of the CFSA for the purpose of apprehending CHILD

An ORDER that this order be enforceable by the police should Mohamed Said or any employees of the Society attempt to enter the home of PARENT unless in accordance with the above mentioned orders.

An ORDER that the Society close the file on CHILD forthwith and that the Society provide PARENT with a letter confirming that the file has been closed.

ANY OTHER ORDER the court deems just in the circumstances.


The following lists the redacted content of the accompanying affidavit of the PARENT

1. I PARENT am the proud father of CHILD1 and CHILD2. I believe the Society, or Mohamed Said (my worker) may be acting in “bad faith” in their recent dealings with me after the court had already ordered my child protection file closed, because I expressed to the Society that I intend to take legal action against the Society for the harm which was done to my child while in care. Since telling them this, the following have taken place.

2. On March 20, 2012 the Society filed a glowing report about me to the court, to which the court ordered the termination
of my supervision order giving me full custody of my son CHILD1, the ORDER and ENDORSEMENT are attached to this affidavit as EXHIBIT “A” and EXHIBIT “B” respectively.

3. Immediately after the hearing was over, I was understandably relieved and a slight bit emotional in the presence of my
lawyer (Meg Green). Right away, Mohammed Said came over to me and asked if I was going to be ok and if I was going to be able to go back home to CHILD1. My lawyer at the time Meg Green quickly stepped in and protectively said I was going to be fine, it's just that it's been a long journey and it's finally over. Mohammed Said then acknowledged that the file was closed, we shook hands and parted ways.

4. Two weeks later, on April 4th, 2012, while I was in the court room regarding my other son CHILD2's matter, Mohammed Said called me two times on my cell. I did not answer as I was in court. On the same day, April 4 th, 2012, after I was finished in the court room, later that afternoon, Mohammed Said called me again at 2:05pm. I answered the phone and Mohammed asked me how I was doing, how CHILD1 was doing, and that it was necessary that he come over to my apartment to see how CHILD1 was doing.

5. I responded by telling him that I was told by my lawyer that the supervision order was terminated, that I was granted
full custody and that I did not have to deal with CAS anymore regarding my son CHILD1.

6. Mohammed Said responded to me by saying “JUST BECAUSE THE JUDGE SAID TERMINATION ON THE 20TH, IT ONLY MATTERS WHAT I SAY, AND THE FILE CLOSES WHEN I SAY IT CLOSES.” He continued to say that “IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH MY REQUEST FOR A HOME VISIT, THINGS WILL NOT WORK OUT WELL FOR YOUR SON AND YOU.”

7. Mohammed Said continued to threaten me by saying I was going back to being uncooperative and that it would only make things worse for me. I then responded by saying that enough is enough and that I am going to let him go and talk to my lawyer. I called my lawyers office, and spoke to her assistant immediately after the phone call and told her what happened with Mohammed Said. She told me she would get in touch with Meg Green right away and speak to her about it.

9. On April 05, 2012, my lawyer, Meg Green sent the Society a letter asking why Mohammed was saying all the things he
said to me which is attached to this affidavit as EXHIBIT “D”. The Society responded by saying that they required a final
visit to close the file.

10. On April 13th, 2012, on advice from my lawyer, Meg Green, I called the Society and spoke with Mohammed Said to ask for more information about the home visit and to let him know that if they wanted to visit me in my home, that I preferred to have someone present.

11. Mohammed Said then responded by saying that what I had said to him was threatening and asked why I need someone else to be present. I did not feel I had to respond to that and Mohammed Said told me he would get in touch with me next week.

12. I was starting to feel scared and intimidated at the Society's forceful way of getting back involved with my son and I
even after the court had already terminated the supervision order and granted me full custody. Feeling worried I went to
visit the Centretown Community Health Centre, to speak with my support person NAME REMOVED who has worked with me since 2009 when my son CHILD1 was just three month old.

13. While speaking with her, I called Mohammed Said on speaker phone so NAME REMOVED could listen. I asked him why the visit would be necessary and why the Society's file on my son CHILD1 and I was still open despite the fact that the court had ordered the supervision order to be closed.

14. Mohammed Said responded by saying that it was necessary to come and see my son CHILD1 to close the file, and he went on to discuss how I had cooperated with them, how I am not cooperating now, and that I should be thankful for all the Society has done for me, and that the only reason I got full custody of my son CHILD1 was because they were in agreement, and it could have gone the other way if the Society was not in agreement. He also said that all they want to do is to close the file.

15. On April 19th, 2012 I sent an e-mail to Mohammed Said asking him and the Society to only communicate with me in writing to ensure I have a legal record all all communication, which I have attached to this affidavit as EXHIBIT “C”.

16. Mohammed Said continues to call me and has done so at least three times since then.

17. On January 24, 2012 a letter from Dr. Poliquin which is attached to this affidavit as EXHIBIT “E” states that I always
attend my son's scheduled medical appointments, my son is always dressed appropriately, I attended scheduled specialists
appointments, and that my son CHILD1 is always happy, seems to be very well taken care of or looked after by me.



The hearing date for this motion is May 28, 2012. The outcome of the motion will be posted upon receiving it.


To ensure you read the latest version of this post, please visit http://www.fostercarenews.blogspot.com as this post may have been modified since being sent out.