Family Court

FATCFSA - 051824

                     IN THE FAMILY COURT FOR THE PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA

                    Citation: Children’s Aid Society of Pictou County v. A.J.G., 2009 NSFC 26

Date: 20091222

Docket: FNGCFSA - 058974

Registry: Pictou

BETWEEN:

                              THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF PICTOU COUNTY

Applicant

                                                                         - and -

                                                                A.J.G. and J.A.G.

Respondents

__________________________________________________________________________

                                                             LIBRARY HEADING

___________________________________________________________________________

Restriction on publication: 

PUBLISHERS OF THIS CASE PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT s.94(1) OF THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT APPLIES AND MAY REQUIRE EDITING OF THIS JUDGMENT OR ITS HEADING BEFORE PUBLICATION.

SECTION 94(1) PROVIDES:

94(l) No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of proceeding pursuant to this Act, or a parent or guardian, a foster parent or a relative of the child.

Judge:         The Honourable Judge James C. Wilson, Judge of the Family Court for the                    Province of Nova Scotia

Heard:            Pictou, Nova Scotia on May 8^th, August 4^th and 5th, November 4^th, 5^th,                   

                        November 25, November 30^th and December 4^th, 2009

Decision Date:

December 22nd, 2009

Subject:           Permanent Care Application

Summary:       The respondent parents had other children placed in permanent care in a previous proceeding.  The respondents had been in an abusive relationship which the respondent mother left during this proceeding.  The court did not follow the recommendations of the parental capacity assessment which recommended placing this child in permanent care,  but accepted the evidence of others, including experts, that the respondent made the necessary changes to adequately parent the child.

The court considered critique of the parental capacity assessment and commented on the need for timely assessments.  The court also considered evidence of hair follicle testing.

Result:            Application dismissed, the child placed in the respondent mother’s care without access to the respondent father.