IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           THE COURT (ORALLY):  K.A.F. has today filed a Notice of Motion, supporting Affidavit and an underlying Application in New Westminster Family Court file number F7943.  K.A.F.'s Notice of Motion is brought ex parte, which is to say without notice to the respondent, G.D.L.R. 

[2]           The Notice of Motion brought by K.A.F. was brought at the direction of a social worker called S.B. who operates out of the Ministry of Child and Family Development office at number 102-4430 Halifax Street, Burnaby, B.C., V5C 5R4. 

[3]           K.A.F. and G.D.L.R. were formerly involved with one another and they had a child together Child S., born [d.o.b.].  I shall refer to her as “Child S.".  K.A.F. is Child S.’s mother, G.D.L.R. is Child S.’s father. 

[4]           By court order dated September 4, 2013, G.D.L.R. has parenting time with Child S. every second weekend from Friday to Sunday.  G.D.L.R. has been exercising his parenting time in accordance with that order. 

[5]           However, on K.A.F.'s testimony and on her evidence as given in her affidavit, yesterday, September 8th, K.A.F. received a telephone call from Social Worker S.B., the social worker, to say that there are significant concerns with G.D.L.R. having children in his care.  Social Worker S.B. went on to tell K.A.F. that G.D.L.R. should not have parenting time with Child S. that was unsupervised by reason of those concerns.  Social Worker S.B. directed K.A.F. to bring this ex parte application in order to obtain an order requiring G.D.L.R.'s parenting time with Child S. to be supervised.

[6]           On her testimony today, K.A.F. explained that Social Worker S.B. declined to provide any details as to the substance of the Ministry's concerns about G.D.L.R. and his having unsupervised parenting time with Child S..  She was told that the concerns have arisen out of G.D.L.R.'s relationship with another adult person who has children who are considered by the Ministry to be in some peril. 

[7]           K.A.F. asked for something in writing from Social Worker S.B. to assist her in making this application.  Social Worker S.B. was either unwilling or unable to provide it.  K.A.F. asked Social Worker S.B. to attend at the hearing of the ex parte application to make his contribution.  Social Worker S.B. told her that he was unable to attend. 

[8]           K.A.F. mentions in her affidavit that Social Worker S.B. queried her about the discipline methods that G.D.L.R. uses when dealing with Child S. but did not provide any details as to what lay behind that question.  In the result, K.A.F. finds herself before the court at the direction of Social Worker S.B., seeking an order without notice to G.D.L.R., with only the most incomplete and shadowy impression as to what might be the reason that such an order is thought to be necessary by Social Worker S.B. 

[9]           We have nothing in writing from Social Worker S.B.  Neither Social Worker S.B. nor any other representative of his office has attended.  Calls placed by the registry at my request to Social Worker S.B.'s office during the mid-afternoon break to secure the attendance of him, or some other person knowledgeable about this matter, were fruitless.  Social Worker S.B. is not in the office today.  There is no one in the office with sufficient knowledge of this matter to contribute anything to the court proceeding that is unfolding at this moment.

[10]        I will say that this places the court in a very difficult position. 

[11]        K.A.F., naturally as Child S.'s mother, is concerned to see that Child S. is safe and secure.  She has acted, in other words, on the direction she received from Social Worker S.B. to bring this ex parte application, out of a concern that Child S. not be placed in harm's way.  But in making that application at Social Worker S.B.'s direction, she has precious little that she can give in the way of evidence to support it. 

[12]        In these circumstances, the potential risk to Child S. must be the controlling consideration, and even though K.A.F. has not been assisted by anyone in being able to give much in the way of detail, the fact that a social worker with the Ministry of Child and Family Development considers a supervision requirement to be a necessity is enough in these unusual and difficult circumstances to, in my judgment, justify the making of an order in the terms sought by K.A.F.

[13]        I will make the following orders:

[14]        Now, K.A.F., you will have to wait here because the Registry is going to have to hurry now to type up this order.

[15]        K.A.F.:  Okay.

[16]        THE COURT:  Then a sheriff is going to serve G.D.L.R.  Social Worker S.B. is going to learn about it by receiving a couriered copy of the order.  The next court appearance will be on September 15th, but once the order is typed up and signed and entered, it is an order of the court.  Once G.D.L.R. is aware of it he will know as well that his parenting time with Child S. will have to occur in accordance with the requirements of Social Worker S.B. or his colleagues.

[17]        K.A.F.:  Okay.

[18]        THE COURT:  I make this order with far less information than is usual, and despite making every effort to get someone here from Social Worker S.B.'s office, to the extent that Social Worker S.B. or his lawful designate is able to add more on the next court appearance, I've directed he be there for that purpose.