My name is (full legal name) KIMBERLY JAMES

I live in (municipality & province) DUFFERIN COUNTY, ONTARIO

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

1. I am

   ■ a child protection worker employed by (full legal name of children's aid society) DUFFERIN CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES
   (Give occupation or title.) INTAKE WORKER

   □ a peace officer in the province of Ontario, employed in (name of office out of which you work)

   
   
2. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe and do believe that (child's full legal name) KENNY McQUAID/PROSH is a child in need of protection for the following reasons: (Set out grounds for belief.) Sec 37(2) (B) CFSA - CRUEL/INAPPROPRIATE TREATMENT - 3 YR OLD LOCKED IN ROOM PHYSICALLY CONFINED
   
   
3. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe and do believe that a course of action less restrictive than the child's removal to a place of safety is not available or will not adequately protect the child, for the following reasons: (Set out grounds for belief.) PARENTS REFUSED ACCESS TO CHILD & HOME, NEGLECT OF BASIC NEEDS - HOUSEHOLD SANITATION CHILD SLEEPING ON TORN MATTRESS - NO BEDDING, ENCRUSTED DIRT, DEBRIS & FOOD WASTE.
   
   (Strike out paragraph 4 if not applicable.)
4. I have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child may be found at (Give full municipal address or a precise description of the premises where the child may be located.) LOT 5 CON 4 EHS MONO TOWNSHIP
   
   

Put a line through any blank space left on this page.

My name is (full legal name) KIMBERLY JAMES

I live in (municipality & province) DUFFERIN COUNTY, ONTARIO

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

ON NOV 15, 1999 DAWN FRANKS, INTAKE WORKER RECEIVED A CALL FROM TINA BERRYMAN. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD CLEANED THE MCQUAID/PROSH RESIDENCE IN OCTOBER 1999 - DESCRIBED THE HOME AS HAVING LATCHES ON THE DOORS. THE FATHER SAID HE "BETTER LET THE MONSTER OUT". TINA SAW MR MCQUAID UNLOCK KENNY'S BEDROOM DOOR & LET HIM OUT. MR MCQUAID THEN WENT INTO HIS OFFICE. KENNY'S ROOM WAS VOID OF TOYS, TORN MATTRESS ON THE FLOOR, NO BEDDING, BEDROOM WINDOW DOESN'T OPEN, DIRTY DIAPERS IN BATHTUB MOLD IN KITCHEN SINK & ON MATS, FOOD ENCRUSTED IN COUNTER, DIRTY DISHES, KENNY DESCRIBED AS BEING DIRTY, FOLLOWED TINA EVERYWHERE & HAD A TANTRUM WHEN SHE LEFT.

THIS WORKER ATTENDED RESIDENCE THIS MORNING WITH POLICE CONST. CRAIG ABRAHMS, SHELBURNE OPP, WE IDENTIFIED OURSELVES & ASKED TO COME IN, HE DENIED ACCESS. MR QUAID WOULD NOT SPEAK WITH US OUTSIDE. MR MCQUAID ASKED WHY WE WERE THERE. I TOLD HIM I HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A LOCK ON HIS SON'S BEDROOM DOOR. MR QUAID THEN SHUT THE DOOR AND LOCKED IT.

I SPOKE WITH PAULETTE SMITH BY PHONE, PAULETTE HAS CLEANED THIS RESIDENCE FOR 10 YEARS, EVERY TWO WEEKS. PAULETTE CONFIRMED TINA BERRYMAN'S OBSERVATIONS. PAULETTE DESCRIBED THE HOME AS A "PIG STY", THE HOME IS DIRTIER SINCE KENNY WAS BORN. PAULETTE STATED THAT KENNY IS LOCKED IN HIS ROOM REGULARLY & THAT THERE ARE HOOK & EYE LOCKS ON EVERY DOOR. PAULETTE STATED THAT MR MCQUAID USUALLY LETS KENNY OUT OF HIS BEDROOM WHEN SHE IN THERE & MR MCQUAID GOES INTO HIS OFFICE. KENNY FOLLOWS HER AROUND & DOES NOT WANT ME TO LEAVE, SHE BELIEVES HE IS LONELY. PAULETTE STATED THAT THERE IS MOLDY FOOD SOMEWHERE IN THE HOUSE EVERY TIME SHE IS THERE. I VERILY BELIEVE THE ABOVE INFORMATION TO BE TRUE.

AS A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER & BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT KENNY IS A CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION. GIVEN HIS AGE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT HE MAY SUFFER PHYSICAL HARM CAUSED BY HIS PARENTS FAILURE TO CARE, PROVIDE FOR OR SUPERVISE HIM ADEQUATELY. KENNY IS CONFINED TO HIS ROOM, LOCKED IN FOR AN UNKNOWN LENGTH OF TIME BUT ON A REGULAR BASIS. THE HOUSEHOLD SANITATION PRESENTS RISK OF HARM TO KENNY - SPOILED FOOD NOT DISCARDED, NO BEDDING, TORN MATTRESS. AS PER THE ELIGIBILITY SPECTRUM THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS CODED ABOVE THE LINE IN TWO SECTIONS AND WARRANTS AN INVESTIGATION UNDER THE CFSA.

Put a line through any blank space left on this page.

TO ALL CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS AND PEACE OFFICERS IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO:

On the basis of an information sworn before me under Part III of the Child an Family Services Act respecting the child named or described at the bottom of this warrant, I am satisfied that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe:

1. that the child is in need of protection; and
2. that a course of action less restrictive than the child's removal to a place of safety is not available or will not adequately protect the child.

I THEREFORE AUTHORIZE YOU TO BRING THIS CHILD to a "place of safety" within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act.

This warrant expires at 5:00 a.m. on November 17, 1999

NOTE: Any changes, alterations or corrections to this form must be initialled by the justice of the peace. It is a criminal offence for any other person to change the wording of this warrant after it has been signed by the justice of the peace.

TO THE RESPONDENTS:
A COURT CASE HAS BEEN STARTED AGAINST YOU IN THIS COURT. THE DETAILS ARE SET OUT ON THE ATTACHED PAGES. THE FIRST COURT DATE IS (date) November 22, 1999 AT 10.00 a.m. or as soon as possible after that time at: address

10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9.

If you have also been served with a notice of motion, there may be an earlier court date and you or your lawyer should come to court for the motion.

IF YOU WANT TO OPPOSE ANY CLAIM IN THIS CASE, you or your lawyer must prepare an answer (Form 10 - a blank copy should be attached), serve a copy on the applicant children's aid society and all other parties and file a copy in the court office with an affidavit of service (Form 6B). YOU HAVE ONLY 30 DAYS AFTER THIS APPLICATION IS SERVED ON YOU (60 DAYS IF THIS APPLICATION IS SERVED ON YOU OUTSIDE CANADA OR THE UNITED STATES) TO SERVE AND FILE AN ANSWER. IF YOU DO NOT, THE CASE WILL GO AHEAD WITHOUT YOU AND THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.

WARNING: This case is subject to case management, which means that the case runs on a timetable. That timetable says that the following steps have to be finished by the following number of days from the start of this case:

You should consider getting legal advice about this case right away. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may be able to get help from your local Legal Aid office. (See your telephone directory under LEGAL AID).

APPENDIX

The terms and conditions that the applicant society purposes for the child's supervision are as follows: (Set out terms and conditions in numbered paragraphs.)

1. Linda Prosh and Robert McQuaids visits will be at the discretion of the Society and the Society will supervise these visits to take place at the Society's Office until further assessments are completed.
2. Parents will participate in a parenting capacity assessment completed by Dr Diane Benoit as soon as possible.
3. Kenneth McQuaid requires a full pediatric assessment
4. Parents sign all necessary consents to fullfill the foregoing.

who will be asking the court for an order for the item(s) listed at the end of this notice.

The person making this motion is also relying on the following documents in the continuing record: (List documents.)

Form 8B: Protection Application

If you want to oppose this motion or to give your own views, you should talk to your own lawyer and prepare your own affidavit, serve it on all other parties not later than 4 days before the date above and file it at the court office not later than 2 days before that date. Only written and affidavit evidence will be allowed at a motion unless the court gives permission for oral testimony. You may bring your lawyer to the motion.

IF YOU DO NOT COME TO THE MOTION, THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER WITHOUT YOU AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.

NOTE TO PERSON MAKING THIS MOTION: You MUST file a confirmation (Form 14C) not later than 2:00 p.m. on the day before the date set out above.

State the order or orders requested on this motion.

NOTE: You must attach a Summary of Court Cases (Form 8E) to this notice of motion.

My name is (full legal name) Kim James

I live in (municipality & province) The Town of Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County of Dufferin, make oath and say:

1. I am employed by Dufferin Children's Aid Society as a Child Protection Intake Worker.

2. Linda Prosh, date of birth December 27, 1954 and Robert McQuaid, date of birth August 5, 1942 are the parents of Kenneth Darryl McQuaid, date of birth October 16, 1996. The reside at RR 5 Orangeville Lot 5 Concession 4 EHS of Mono Township. Kenneth, (Ken) was born in Toronto, Ontario. I requested Ken's birth certificate but was informed by Linda that she was unable to find it. Linda is self employed in computer graphics and animation. Robert is self employed, "Quaid Software Limited".

3. This agency received a call on November 15, 1999 from Tina Berryman who is an employee with Molly Maid Cleaning Service. Tina expressed her concerns about the McQuaid/Prosh residence and the welfare of Ken McQuaid. Tina stated that she was to their residence in October of this year and upon entering the home Mr McQuaid stated that he "better let the monster out" and proceeded to Ken's bedroom where Tina observed him unlock the door. Mr McQuaid then proceeded to his office located down the hall. Tina described the residence as a disgrace. Tina stated that Ken's room was torn up, the mattress was on the floor, no toys, no dresser in his bedroom. Tina stated that Ken was dressed in a diaper and a t-shirt. There were 5 or 6 dirty diapers in the bathtub and the bathroom was described as cruddy and dirty. Tina stated that there was mould in the kitchen sink, food encrusted on the counter, dirty dishes. Tina stated that Ken was dirty and barely spoke and followed her around the home while she cleaned. Tina stated that she was there approximately an hour and a half. During this time his father never came out of his office and his mother was not home. Tina stated that every door in the house has a lock on it. The initial information was received by Dawn Franks, Intake Worker with Dufferin Children's Aid Society. I verily believe this to be true.

4. This worker attended the McQuaid/Prosh residence accompanied by P.C. Abrams, Shelburne OPP on November 16, 1999 at approximately 10:35 am. We approached the front entrance way which was blocked by a fallen tree. Mr McQuaid answered the front door and we identified ourselves and requested to come in and speak with him. Mr McQuaid denied us entry, we asked him to step outside which he also declined. Mr McQuaid asked why we were there and I informed him that we had received a call stating that there was a lock on their son's bedroom door. Mr McQuaid the shut the door on us.

5. PC Abrams and this worker returned to the Society office and met with Kim Evans, Program Manager and was advised to make an application for a warrant to apprehend Ken. This worker obtained a Warrant of Apprehension signed by Justice of the Peace Gwen Funston. Please refer to Exhibit "A". This worker contacted Shelburne OPP detachment and spoke with PC Dickson requesting assistance of two officers and informed him that I had a warrant of apprehension. This worker then met PC Dickson and Sergeant Brodhagen at Coffee Time just south of Hockley Valley Road. We then proceeded to the McQuaid/Prosh residence. Mr McQuaid answered the door and was informed that we had a warrant of apprehension and we entered the residence at approximately 6 pm.

6. Ken was in the entrance way when we came into the home. Mr McQuaid led us to the living room which was located down the hall from the front entrance. As I walked down the hall I observed locks on the doors, there were two heating vents without grate coverings, there was a large cement pillar lying on its side. Mr McQuaid sat down on a couch in the dark, put his feet up on the coffee table, folded his arms across his chest and stated that he was not going to answer any of our questions. Mr McQuaid was asked if there was a light for the room and he replied "he broke them all, they don't work". PC Dickson asked "who broke them?", Mr McQuaid responded he did, he did all of this". We inquired as to Linda's whereabouts, she was downstairs and came upstairs asking who we were and why we were there. Linda then stated that she knew who had done this, referring to the individual that had made the report to the Society. This worker clarified to Linda that the referent did not make allegations of physical abuse but the concerns were regarding her son being locked in his bedroom and the dirty state of the home. Linda stated that the doors were locked, referring to this as "a rather elaborate system, there are actually two types of locks to keep Ken out of the rooms". Linda then began to talk abut Ken being destructive and that she does not know how to control him. Linda stated that she ends up putting Ken in his room when he is out of control and that is why his room is a mess. I then asked to see Ken's room and was led down the hall.

7. Ken's room was not locked. There was half of a lock catch located on the door but the hook had been removed from the door frame. The door knob did have a key lock mechanism which Linda stated they did not use. I entered the room and observed a twin size wooden bedframe with the supporting slats exposed, the mattress was on the floor and there was no bedding on the mattress. The bifold door for the closet was folded underneath one end of the mattress. The other end of the mattress was up against the side of a broken crib. There were two metal rods sticking out from the crib, approximately 3 inches in length. There was an electric fan on the crib mattress, the heating vent was stuffed with shredded paper. The closet was empty, there were strips of carpet laying on the floor, there were chords for the window dressing exposed as well as exposed light bulbs on the ceiling. There was a locked trunk in the corner of the room. Linda stated that Ken trashed his room every day. I asked where he slept and she indicated in this room. She stated that she would make up his bed and in the morning this is how she would find it. I asked her what she does when she hears him trashing his room, she replied nothing. I asked if she thought that her son had behavior problems, Linda replied that he was a very strong little boy and very rambunctious but never thought that he had a behaviour problem. I indicated to her that this was not normal behaviour for a child that is being adequately supervised and engaged in stimulating activities. I went on to indicate the safety concerns, to which Linda replied that she had child proof his room as much as she possibly could. I then pointed out the hazards that I had noted as well as the exposed heating vents in the hall way. Linda replied that they knew the vents were there and that they were cautious. I clarified that my concern was regarding an active toddler running down the hallway and stepping into the vent could cut his leg or break it.

8. I asked Linda to show me the rest of the home. All of the doors were locked by either the hook and eye mechanism or key handle locks. The powder room bathroom stank of dirty diapers which were piled in a small waste basket. I then enquired about toilet training. Linda stated that Ken was still in diapers and that he would not sit on the toilet. I asked how many times she has attempted to train him and she stated that she was really busy and had not really given it much of her time. Linda began to talk about how much she and her husband work. I asked where Ken was while they were working and she indicated that he was up stairs and that is why everything was locked, to deny him access. I asked how long Ken would be left alone at a time, Linda was unable to give me an answer. She stated that he is never really alone because Robert and herself are both working in their offices. I indicated that Ken did not have direct access to them and she said that I was right. I observed Mr McQuaid's office and the master bedroom which appeared to be adequately furnished and kept. We went downstairs. A piece of art was suspended above the stair well. Linda indicated that Ken had knocked it off the wall. Linda stated to myself and PC Dickson that Ken is not allowed downstairs unless she is with him. Ken emptied a child's jigsaw on the floor of her office and Linda said, "see, he is always doing stuff like that". I replied that was normal behaviour for a three year old. I then went upstairs and viewed the kitchen.

9. The kitchen was also on the hook and eye lock system. The kitchen was dirty. There was a cooked tv dinner on the table which did not appear to be touched. I asked Linda when Ken last ate. Linda stated that she had made him the tv dinner but that he did not eat it. She stated that he usually throws his food and dinnerware. I again asked when his last meal was. Linda stated that she wasn't sure but thought Bob had fed him lunch but she was not sure of what. Linda stated that she thought that he may have had a muffin, I indicated that I did see a half eaten muffin somewhere in the house and she replied that was Ken's. Linda stated that she had given him cereal in the morning. I asked if the family sits down to eat together and she replied sometimes. I asked what Ken's bedtime was, she replied whenever they were finished working. I asked if he had a bedtime routine. Linda did not respond. I asked what she did to get him ready for bed, Linda replied that she gave him some coco and then put him in his room and shut the door. Linda stated that she likes to take Ken for walks on their property but that she has to carry him back because he won't walk. Linda stated that she tries to take him to the Dufferin Resource Centre once a week and to the park because he likes the swing.

10. I then began to focus on Ken. He was vocal and verbalizing words but much of the time he was mumbling. Ken was not able to communicate to me. He mimicked everything I said and could not answer simple questions such as "what color is this?". Ken was eating an apple and he was spitting chunks out on the floor. He went into the kitchen to obtain another apple. I had to take a knife away from him as he was attempting to cut it. Ken appeared to be healthy. His eyes appeared a little sunken and dark circles were under both eyes. I observed superficial scratch marks around his midriff. Possibly self inflicted. There were no other visible marks on him.

11. I consulted with both PC Dickson and Sergeant Brodhagen as to their thoughts about Ken being a child in need of protection. Please see Exhibit "B". Both officers indicated that they would not feel comfortable leaving him in his home due to the lack of supervision and that they had never really seen anything like this before. PC Dickson stated that he would like to photograph this home, I informed him that there was a camera in my car and asked if he would obtain it. I asked Linda if I could use her phone and consulted with my Program Manager, Kim Evans. I relayed my concerns for Ken's personal safety due to the hazards as well as it appeared as though Ken was not adequately supervised and that there was not much interaction between the family members. Ken also appeared to present some developmental delays. I was directed to bring him into care. I began taking pictures of the kitchen, Ken's bedroom and various hazards I had observed in the home. Please see Exhibit "C". I then informed Linda that I would be taking Ken into foster care this evening and requested that she pack some clothes for him as well as any toys or comfort objects that he may have.

12. At some point I had seen Mr McQuaid get up from the living room and walk to his office where he remained behind closed doors for a period of time. He came out and began to dismantle the crib which I had instructed to Linda needed to be done due to the hazard. Linda was obtaining items for Ken. The whole time that we were in their home the parents did not interact with Ken once. Linda changed Ken's diaper and got him dressed in his coat, hat and boots. Linda was crying at this time. Robert did not say goodbye to Ken.

13. Ken was placed at an approved foster home in Dufferin county.

14. On November 17, 1999, I requested that a Parent Infant worker observe Ken in the foster home and provide me with initial observations and assessment. Nina Little Alcorn summarizes in her report that she suspects developmental lags and concerning social and language behaviours. Ken can interact at some level, albeit through toys. Please see Exhibit "D".

15. I spoke with Linda by phone in the morning. Linda stated that she is prepared to do anything that the Society wants and that she will get Robert to cooperate as well. Linda asked if she could visit with Ken. I asked if she would be able to meet with me later in the day and to bring his health card and birth certificate. Appointment set for 4 pm.

16. I attended the foster home for approximately an hour and was left alone with Ken. I observed him to be calm and playing with toys. Ken and I attempted to communicate and once again he mimicked my speech. I was able to redirect his attention and behaviour with ease. When the foster mother returned home we discussed how the evening was. She stated that he was difficult to bath and became upset when they washed his hair. Ken also stripped his bed twice, each time it was remade. His bed and the bedroom were intact in the morning except that his pillows were on the floor. At the time of writing this affidavit Ken's behaviour has been described as well behaved. He has not been out of control, destructive, aggressive, he is following direction and beginning to speak more clearly. Ken is also taking and interest in toilet training as there are other toddlers in the foster home who are in the process of learning.

17. I passed this information on to Linda during our meeting. She seemed surprised that he has not been destructive and she stated that it seemed that he did not miss them. Linda and I talked about her personal history as well as her relationship with Robert and Ken. Linda stated that she and Robert are not very sociable people. Linda stated that she believes Ken was about 16 months when he began to crawl and she was also concerned about his lack of speech. Linda took Ken to Dr Trevor Hunt in Alliston, paediatrician, on two separate occasions to discuss her concerns. The doctor referred Ken to an occupational therapist for the crawling. Ken was also referred for a speech assessment. Linda claims that the next day after visiting the doctor, Ken began to crawl and the second visit he began to speak. Linda did not follow up with her concerns after this. Linda asked if Robert could come for the visit as well, I asked if he wanted to. Linda stated that she would ask him if he wanted to come. Linda informed me that she met Robert at a MENSA meeting. Linda stated that both she and Robert wanted a child.

18. This worker has called both the family doctor and the pediatrician but at the time of writing the affidavit have not been able to speak with them. The Society has made an appointment with Dr Ron Murphy for a complete physical and developmental assessment. This is scheduled for Friday, November 19, 1999. Please see Exhibit "E".

19. Linda and Ken had a scheduled visit for Thursday, November 18, 1999 at 1:30 pm. I observed their visit for one hour at the Society office. Linda was seated on the couch in the room when I brought Ken in. Linda said "hi Ken" while sitting down. Ken said "hi mom" and sat in a chair opposite her. Linda asked Ken for a kiss. He got up, walked around the table and stood beside her. He leaned towards her but did not kiss her. Linda stated that he has never kissed her. Ken then said "that's not a kiss" and Linda kissed him saying "that's a kiss". Ken did not engage his mother as a playmate. The level of interaction was through the toys and not personal. There was distance between their interaction. Linda did attempt to hold him on her lap once, Ken did not respond but rather sat there for a very short period of time. Linda left the room at one point in the visit. Ken followed her to the door. When she shut the door he reached for the handle and made a small cry sound and then went for the toys. When Linda came back into the room Ken was seated on the couch and he did not get up and greet her. Linda took him to change his diaper and he went without any fuss. Ken found markers and paper. Linda did not want him to have the markers and said that she would draw him a picture. Ken tried to take the marker that Linda was using and they were engaged in a tug of war over the marker, Linda remarking that she was drawing Ken a picture. Ken became frustrated with this an threw the markers at Linda. Linda stated to me that she does not like Ken to have markers and I replied that she should take them away from him and put them away, Linda did so. At the end of the visit we walked out to the waiting area where the foster dad was. Ken approached the foster dad and was directed to say good bye to his mother. Linda asked for a good bye kiss. Once again, Ken went over to his mother, leaned close to her, did not kiss her but she kissed him. Robert did not attend for the visit.

20. During the visit Linda inquired as to how Ken was behaving at the foster home. I told her that he was doing very well. She asked how bed time was. I informed her that last night he went to bed around 8:30 pm without any problems and slept the whole night through, room and bed in tact. Linda appeared to be surprised. She asked if he was throwing his food and utensils at meal times, I said that they did not mention that this was happening. Linda stated that she was surprised to hear this. She then asked if there has been any form of disruptive behaviour I replied not that I am aware of. Linda then said, maybe he thinks there is something wrong with us. Linda then asked Ken if he wanted to go home. Ken did not reply. I asked Linda how they celebrated his 3rd birthday. Linda stated that they didn't do anything. I asked if they had a cake for him, she replied no and stated that they are not really big on "that sort of thing". I asked Linda what they got him for his birthday and she said nothing because she buys him things all the time. I asked what sort of things she buys, she replied clothes. Linda stated that she would only buy toys from the dollar store for him because he is so destructive. Linda stated that they might do something for him when he gets older.

21. I spoke with the foster mother on the morning of November 19, 1999 and she informed me that Ken had a good day with them. He took a bath with their toddler and played with bath tub toys. He was in bed by 8 pm without incident and slept through the night. His bed and room intact. The foster mother stated that since he has arrived, "he hasn't broken a single thing, not even dumped a cereal bowl. He picked up the baby's soother this morning and said, oh, back in baby's mouth. This is Ken's baby".

22. My assessment of Ken McQuaid, age 3 years is as follows: Ken is a child in need of protection as there is substantial risk that he will suffer physical harm caused by his parent's failure to care and provide for or supervise and protect him adequately. Ken has been physically confined to his room for unknown periods of time and his movements/access has been restricted to a bleak, unstimulating environment. The area that Ken has access to present hazardous conditions and the household sanitation poses neglectful conditions and as a result there is a high potential for injury, harm or illness to Ken. His parents excecise little supervision over him. They are locked in their offices and therefore may be unable to access Ken's play area quickly if necessary. Linda and Robert do not demonstrate sufficient qualities/abilities for child care. Their inability to demonstrate bonding or nurturing characteristics are presenting serious risk to Ken's well-being.

23. I make these statements with no improper intent.

My name is (full legal name) Robert McQuaid

I live in (municipality & province) Township of Mono, County of Dufferin

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. I have had the opportunity to review the affidavit and attached materials of Kim James sworn November 19, 1999.

2. I am the natural father of the child Kenneth McQuaid born October 16, 1999 and my wife Linda Prosh is the natural mother of the child.

3. Linda and I have been active and loving involved parents of Kenneth. I confirm that there are locks on the doors in the home in order to ensure that Kenneth does not injure himself in any of the rooms on furniture etc. Kenneth has become increasingly destructive and our method of dealing with this has been to restrict his access to some of the common areas, unless he is immediately supervised by my wife or me. There is also a lock on his bedroom door, which we do on occasion use to give Kenneth a time out when he is behaving inappropriately.

4. Kenneth is well groomed, dressed, fed and loved. Kenneth's family physician, Dr Ross in Tottenham can attest to the fact that there has never been occasion when Kenneth has been treated for any injury. He is not malnourished or otherwise neglected. In fact, my concern until Kenneth was two years old was that he had never had so much as a cold and I believed he needed exposure to some colds in order to develop his immune resistance more effectively.

5. I have an involved relationship in Kenneth's life. I will take him for a walk daily on our property of 67 acres. He is deeply bonded to me and does voluntarily come to me for affection and attention. I am an active participant in feeding him, clothing and changing him.

6. The Police allege in their notes that I was in an almost catatonic state. I have a strong belief in my right to counsel, particularly in light of the allegations being laid against me by the CAS and the Police. I felt it in my best interest to be non-communicative. I did not believe I had any reason to address the allegations of the CAS because I know Kenneth is well cared for and loved.

7. My wife Linda does take him to the Resource Centre in Orangeville to give Kenneth the opportunity to interact with other children. The worker there, Debbie, could attest to this fact.

8. The housekeeper, Tina Berryman, had been in attendance at our home on one occasion. I confirm that our home could be cleaner, but the home does not pose a risk to Kenneth.

9. The cement pillars that the officer referred to had been the legs of a glass table. I had removed the glass from the table top some months ago and stored it in a locked room because of my concern that Kenneth might hurt himself on the glass if it fell. The cement pillars had been used to block him from crawling behind the wall unit in the living room. I was worried that he would access the plugs and electrical cords. The pillars were recently set on their sides because Kenneth had threatened to knock them over and again I was concerned for his safety.

10. Linda and I had decided to place Kenneth in day care because we believed he needs greater exposure to other children at this stage in his life and being in the country does not afford him the opportunity to play with many other kids. Linda began looking in late summer and had difficulty finding a day care that was not full with the return to school coming soon.

11. I confirm that we had the diapers in the tub in the spare bathroom. We keep them there at a maximum for three days. We then gather them and take them to the barn. I share the changing of the diapers. I take Kenneth two to three times a week in to Orangeville with me to run errands. I believe he should be exposed to other people and I am taking this opportunity.

12. We take him on weekend outings every other weekend to places such as the hiking area at Mono Cliffs, Belwood Lake, the Orangeville Conservation Area.

13. Kenneth has a huge number of Lego toys, dolls, cars and trucks. We do not spend a great deal of money on his toys, but he does have a number of them. They are not stored in his bedroom. We like to supervise him when he plays.

14. When the cleaning ladies are in the home, I generally try to get out of their way and go into my work room. Kenneth enjoys the company and I leave him following the cleaners around. Paulette generally comes and I have known Paulette for approximately 10 years and I know her well enough to feel comfortable leaving Kenneth out with her. I have never had any complaints that Kenneth interferes with their work.

15. I do call Kenneth the Ken Monster. It is a term of endearment to me and if Tina Berryman took it amiss, then I cannot be responsible for that. Linda and I have both nicknamed him that.

My name is (full legal name) Kim James

I live in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County of Dufferin, make oath and say:

1. I am employed by Dufferin Children's Aid Society as a Child Protection Intake Worker.

2. On November 18, 1999, I spoke with Audrey Campbell who works with Dr Trevor Hunt. Dr Hunt met with Linda and Ken on September 12, 1997 due to delayed milestones. Dr Hunt noted that Ken would fall backwards when in a seated position. Ken was approximately 11 months old at this time and should have been able to meet this milestone. Dr Hunt had made a referral for an occupational therapist. On June 22, 1999, Dr Hunt met with Linda and Ken due to delayed speech and a referral was made for a speech therapist. I verily believe this to be true.

3. On November 22, 1999, The Society, Robert McQuaid and Linda Prosh agreed to adjourn the matter of Kenneth McQuaid until December 1, 1999 as the parents agreed to work with the Society. During the interim, Kenneth remained in the temporary care and custody of the Society. The parents were to address and implement, to the satisfaction of the Society six conditions. Please see Exhibit "A". It was my understanding that if the conditions were met to the satisfaction of the Society that a "least intrusive measure" would be sought by the agency in working with this family. Arrangements were made for the parents to have one hour daily supervised visits with Ken at the Society office. This worker would continue with the investigation and gathering information.

4. This worker had opportunity to observe the visits between Ken and his parents on four separate occasions. Upon reuniting with his father after a six day separation and four days for his mother there was no form of affection shown immediately. Ken went straight for the blocks that his parents had brought him. Ken continued to focus his time and attention on the toys rather than his parents. Bob finally invited Ken over to read a story book to him. Ken appeared content and relaxed on his father's lap. The parents present more as teachers than playmates with Ken. Their conversation was a question answer format. When it was time to say good bye Ken cried a little but stopped as soon as he saw his foster mother. This worker also received a voice mail message from Nina Little Alcorn with the Parent Infant Program stating that Bob McQuaid had called her as he was complying with the conditions agreed upon between himself and the Society. I verily believe this to be true. Nina met Linda and Bob after this visit and gave them a pamphlet outlining the Parent Infant Program and spoke with them briefly about their services. Nina had asked them to read the pamphlet.

5. On November 23, 1999, this worker spoke with Debbie Holmes, an employee at Community first. Debbie verified that she has seen Linda and Ken at the resource centre but was unsure of the frequency. Debbie stated that Linda has had a membership with them for over a year. I verily believe this to be true. The visit on this day was similar to the previous day. Once again the greeting was not affectionate. Bob immediately began reading to Ken. Linda interrupted this on two occasions. Linda showed Ken the toys that they had bought him and gave him chocolates. Ken attempted to engage his father in play by giving him a car. Bob held it, said "my car Ken", then gave the car back to Ken. They displayed the teacher role once again. Linda would say, "yellow duckie, yellow block, blue jacket, blue block," This was repeated over and over with the other colours. At one point Linda stated, "you are far more important to him that I am". I believe this is due to the fact that Ken attempted to interact more with his father. Linda asked Ken if he wanted to go on the swing and then told him he could not. It is my understanding from Linda that she would take Ken to the park after their visits to Community First and Ken enjoyed the swing. Bob had Ken on his lap and they were counting, Ken did not appear interested and Bob responded by saying, "were playing counting now, pay attention child". Linda asked if he wanted to sit on her lap, Ken got up but only stayed there for approximately 10 seconds. By 3:45 pm there was no interaction between the parents and Ken. Ken was playing with the empty boxes that his toys came in and the parents were having a conversation. Ken left the visit without hugs and kisses from his parents. This worker also made note that the parents were concerned that they were being audio or video taped as their visits take place in our interview room. The interview room has a two way mirror, two video cameras mounted on the wall and two wall microphones.

6. On November 24, 1999, I met with the foster mother at her home. She informed me that Ken does need a nap in the afternoon otherwise he is extremely cranky in the evening. Ken has also progressed from diapers to pull ups and is showing an interest in toilet training of the other toddlers in the home. Ken is both giving and asking for hugs. Ken has broken three chain locks on their external back door as he is wanting to go outside and play on the swing. When he has broken the locks he says, "bad boy Ken, you broke it Ken, you can't go in there in Ken". During my visit Ken appeared to be happy as he was playing with the toys and sat on my lap for a period of time while we drew a stick figure of Ken. Later in the morning of this day, Reverend Lou Potter called me and stated that she had just met with the McQuaids and that they had given her verbal permission to speak with me. Lou stated that they appeared to be having difficulty understanding the concerns regarding the locked doors. Lou stated that they had told her that Ken would be confined to his room for a period of an hour when he was bad. Lou stated that it was her opinion that they did care for their son but had very little practical parenting knowledge. Lou stated that she advised them that a child three years of age should only receive a two to three minute time out for bad behaviour not an hour. Lou suggested that they pick up a book on child development and one on parenting.

7. The visit on November 24, 1999, was scheduled between 4-5 pm. I met Ken in the foyer at the office. When I told him it was time to see his mom and dad he stood motionless with a void look on his face and would not respond. Hereafter this behaviour will be referred to as freezing. I took this time to address their concerns about being audio and video taped. I showed them the monitors located in the back kitchen that are hooked up to the video cameras in their room and explained that I was watching them on the monitors and making notes. I explained to them the purpose of the set up of the room. Ken was given a new stuffed toy and more chocolate. Bob made something out of the blocks but did not invite Ken to interact with him. Linda asked Ken if he wanted to go home, yes or no. Ken did not respond. She asked him again, Ken went and picked up his coat. Ken unzipped the hood from the jacket and said, "bad boy Ken". Linda offered to fix it. Linda then asked again if he wanted to go home. Ken made a whining noise this time and Bob invited Ken onto his lap and patted his back. Ken got down and went over to the blocks. He threw two of them. Both parents responded by saying, "Don't throw blocks Ken, bad boy, pick them up Ken". Ken then cleared the blocks from the table. His parents told him to pick them up, he did not. Bob stated, bad boy Ken and then invited him onto his lap and read him a book. Linda interrupted by asking Ken if he was mad at her. Linda then asked Ken how he was. No response. Bob then asked Ken to pick up the blocks, Ken did so. Linda then picked Ken up and sat him on her lap. Ken struggled to get free. The visit ended once again with no affectionate interaction. Nina Little Alcorn and myself came into the room. Ken did the "freezing" behaviour again when we had entered the room.

8. After the visit Nina Little Alcorn and myself met with Linda and Bob. Nina had asked Linda and Bob how they were doing. Linda responded that both she and Bob were not eating or sleeping very much. Linda then stated that she was concerned about the long term affects and motioned toward Bob who was sitting beside her. Linda then mouthed the words, "especially about him". I gave feedback to the parents of my observations and suggested how they may interact with Ken during their visits. I told Bob that I saw some good interaction between them when he was reading the books to Ken. I suggested that when they bring the blocks, instead of them talking about the colours or the parents building something for Ken that they invite Ken to build something with them. Nina had suggested that they get down to Ken's level and play. Nina asked if they had read the pamphlet that she gave them. They stated that they had not. A discussion took place regarding day care centres and Nina gave them another handout on how to look for a day care provider and booked an appointment with them.

9. On November 25, 1999, this worker met Ken in the foyer again and asked if he was ready to go see mom and dad. Ken gave this worker a hug and asked if I wanted to go to Kelsey's. I told Ken no and said that he was going to visit mom and dad. Ken displayed the 'freezing' behaviour once again. I called his name and rubbed his cheek and he snapped out of it. When I took him to see his parents he greeted them happily but once again, no form of physical affection exchanged. This visit was difficult to watch as the parents displayed inappropriate responses to Ken's attempts for consoling. This occurred when Bob and Linda began by asking Ken if he wanted to go home, if he wanted to go on the swing, over and over. Ken went and got his coat, repeating what they were saying and went to put it on. They then stated that they were not going. Ken became upset by this and began to cry. He went to his father for consoling. Bob sat outstretched in his chair, his arms crossed in front of himself and did not move. Ken attempted to prod at his father's hands, directly looking for physical contact, no response. Not so much as a word was uttered by either parent to console Ken. Bob and Linda had bought Ken a toy cell phone. Ken was happy to receive it and began to play with it immediately. Ken was told by Linda not to break it, Bob took it away from him and put it in his pocket. Ken became upset by this. Bob redirected Ken's attention by picking him up onto his lap and read him a book. Ken asked about the phone and Bob replied that it was too loud. Ken got down and retrieved the blocks. No one interacted with him. Ken went to his father and asked about the phone again, no response. Ken then went to his mother and pointed out a truck in the magazine that she was reading. Linda repeated his words. Ken went back to his dad and asked to get up, Bob responded and they began to read the book again. Bob asked Ken where the clock was, referring to the clock in the book. Ken looked at the clock on the wall. Linda points to the clock on the wall and says, "what time is it Ken?". Bob responds to Ken's answers by saying brilliant, vary smart. Ken points to a broom in the book and Bob responds, "that's for cleaning up after you Ken, that's a broom". Linda asks Ken if he is sleepy. As soon as the book was finished Bob told Ken to go and bug his mom. Linda sat forward and picked up her magazine. Linda then asked Ken how he was feeling and finally picked Ken up. Ken sat on her lap a total of 30 seconds. This is when Bob and Linda began to question Ken about going home, going on the swing and Ken getting upset. Once Ken calmed down on his own he went to the plastic birds that his parents had bought him. Ken brings the birds to his father, no interaction engaged. Ken starts to throw the birds. Linda and Bob tell Ken not to do this. Linda says, "we don't like that bratty behaviour". Ken echo's this. Linda then says, "that's the cell door and that's the espionage window," referring to the two way mirror. Ken opens the door and says, "good boy, want to say good bye". Bob asks Ken if he wants to go. At 3:55 pm Bob gets the blocks and says, "I'm going to start and lets see if you can put some on". Bob begins and then Ken puts the rest of the blocks on and Bob sits back on his chair, no longer engaged. Bob says, "that's a good construction", Linda says, "that makes it stable". Bob says to Linda that Ken does not understand and then laughs. Linda returns to looking at her magazine. Ken continues to build with the blocks. Linda then places one of the birds on the blocks and says that they should have built a bird house. Linda then asks Ken if he wants to go home, yes or no? Ken responds by saying. "do you want to go to Kelsey's?". Linda says, "I think you'd be okay now, you wouldn't take a royal fit". Bob says, "we will celebrate your release". Ken puts a bird on the blocks and says make them fly and knocks them off the blocks. No response by parents. Ken then asks, "want to take shoes off?". No response. Linda then asks Ken where his "furbee" is, Ken does not respond. Ken goes over to the garbage pail and pulls out the toy wrapper and repeats five times, "that's a wrapper". Bob then asks Ken for the wrapper. They begin to point out letters of the alphabet. Linda says, "I'd take you to Kelsey's now, I don't think you'd be as bad now". Ken opens the door and says, "want to go to Kelsey's?" and shuts the door. Linda replies, "don't slam the door Ken".

10. I enter the room at this point and Ken greets me and says, "want to go see mom and dad". I attempt to redirect Ken by asking about his new toys. I begin to play with the birds, pretending that they are flying. Ken begins to throw the birds. Linda and Bob both say, "see that's what he always does". Linda adds that it is usually his food and utensils that he throws. I continue to show Ken how to make birds fly and redirecting him. Ken asks again, "want to go see mom and dad" and moves toward the door. Ken then leaves the room and goes to the foyer and greets his foster mom with "you want a hug?"

11. After this visit I met with Linda and Bob along with Kim Evans, Program Manager of Child Protection. This visit was prearranged in order to discuss the conditions of the agreement. The first condition regarding day care was discussed. Linda indicated that she had been to see a couple of them and that two of them were available December 1, 1999. Linda stated that she had begun looking in September but that Bob didn't like the idea. Linda would prefer to have Ken attend every day, Bob feels that every other day is good enough because he wants Ken at home with him. Bob also stated that three days was enough exposure to other children and that they have great facilities around their own home, referring to the 67 acres that Ken can romp around.

12. The second condition is in reference to following through with Dr Murphy's recommendations. They have an appointment to meet with Dr Murphy on December 21, 1999. Linda is wanting to ask the doctor about Ken's blood, they do not have an agenda set for discussion with Dr Murphy.

13. The third condition is following through with the Parent Infant Program. They have a visit scheduled with Nina for December 7, 1999. I asked if they have read the pamphlet Nina gave them, they said no. I asked how they felt about the Parent Infant Program and whether they thought that it was an appropriate service in regard to Ken's needs. They both stated that they did not know, that they would not know what the service/program was until Nina came to their home.

14. The fourth condition is in reference to the safety issues at home. Bob replied that they have removed the lock from Ken's door, the light fixture was fixed and that they were painting his room. Bob stated that I had not pointed out any other concerns and therefore in his opinion this condition had been complied to.

15. The fifth condition outlines releases of information from their doctors. Bob stated that Dr Ross had informed him that the Society needs to initiate the forms. I stated to Bob that I would get the appropriate forms for them to sign.

16. The sixth condition states parenting courses and counselling if recommended. Bob stated that they have not done anything regarding this as it only states if recommended. I informed Bob that I am recommending that counselling and a parenting capacity assessment be sought for the both of them. I told them that they could call Toronto Hospital for Sick Children or McMaster Chedoke Hospital and request names to complete the parenting capacity assessment.

17. I then asked Linda about her comment yesterday with regard to her concerns about the long term affects on Bob. Linda said she really didn't want to say anything in front of Bob. I replied that she brought it up yesterday in front of Bob and that it was concerning me. Linda began to talk about their lawyer, Bob cautioned Linda that this was not information to share with us. Linda then stated that she felt that Bob was, "taking this thing too far. He is wanting to move and I don't want to move". Bob interrupted at this time and asked me if I was trying to drive them apart. I replied that what I was trying to do was assess the current situation at home and to complete my investigation. Bob replied that they did not have to answer any of my questions. I informed him that it was my understanding from his lawyer that they were willing to cooperate with the Society. Bob stated that he was cooperating and would only comply to the conditions set out in the agreement. I asked Bob if he was saying that he would not cooperate and answer my questions, he stated again that he would only comply with the conditions and would not discuss anything other than those conditions with me. I then stated that based on my observations of their visits with Ken that I had great concerns regarding their parenting capacity. I told them that even after making suggestions about increasing interaction they made little to no effort. They had not shown an interest in the Parent Infant Program nor did I get the sense that they felt that it was applicable to them. I then stated that it was very concerning that they made no effort to console Ken today when he became upset. Linda stated that I was lying. I stated that what I observed was Ken getting upset after they continued to ask him if he wanted to go home, on the swing, etc, Ken got his coat and they said that he could not go. Ken became upset and went to Bob who sat there and I physically copied Bob's body posture. I informed them that neither one of them so much as said a word to comfort Ken. Again Linda stated that Ken did not get upset during their visit and that I was fabricating this because I was upset with them about what they had done. I informed Linda that this was not personal on any level and that I was not the only one who had observed this visit. I informed them that Kim Evans had also observed this session and Kim nodded her head in agreement. They asked if Ken was going to be returned home on December 1, 1999. I informed them that the Society would continue with the original application and request for Crown Wardship at this time. The rational behind this is that there is concern about their parenting capacity and the cause of Ken's developmental delays is unknown at this time and now there is added concern of risk of flight if Ken is returned home. I further stated that it is also concerning that Bob is not willing to cooperate, that they appear not to have an understanding or a concern regarding Ken's developmental needs. The meeting ended by Linda stating that she was very angry, that this was not democratic, that this was a police state and that they had a right to a public forum and that they would use the public forum. Linda further stated that I was upset with them because of the "e mail". I informed Linda that she was entitled to her thoughts and opinions. Bob stated that we had an agreement and could not arbitrarily change those conditions at any time. I asked if they had any questions and they asked if they still had their visit with Ken. I replied that they had scheduled supervised visits for tomorrow and next Monday and Tuesday.

18. I have had the opportunity to review the affidavit of Bob McQuaid sworn November 22, 1999. In response to paragraph '3' it is concerning that Bob identifies Ken's behaviour as increasingly destructive but they have not sought professional help to date to help them deal with Ken's behaviour. Linda has stated that she does not believe that Ken has a behaviour problem and yet both parents have demonstrated that they are unable to redirect Ken's behaviour and respond to his behaviour by confining him to his room. In paragraph '5' Bob indicates that he is an active participant in feeding, clothing and changing Ken. Linda has stated to this worker that she has been wanting to go and visit her brother in Denver but has not been able to do so because she would need to find someone to care for Ken. Linda said that she would not feel comfortable leaving Ken alone in Bob's care as he does not do everything he should. Linda further stated that Bob is good in helping change Ken's diapers and that is about it. This information was shared the evening of November 16th and during her office visit with Ken on the 18th of November, 1999. In paragraph '9', Bob states that he took the glass table apart and put it away, Linda indicated to myself on November 16th, that Ken had destroyed it. In paragraph 10, Bob states that he is in support of Ken attending day care. Linda has stated twice to me that Bob has been opposed to her wanting to put Ken into day care. In paragraph 13, Bob states that Ken does not have free access to his toys. A child this age should have access to toys for purpose of stimulating their development through pretend play. A child at this age of development also spends a great deal of their time in what is known as solo play in order to learn to manipulate their environment. It is also concerning that Bob stated that they supervise him and that they are not interacting with him. In paragraph 14 Bob states that he gets out of the way of the cleaning ladies but leaves his toddler to follow the cleaning ladies around. It has been my experience that a toddler would get in the way of someone attempting to get something completed. In paragraph 15, Bob states that the "Ken Monster" is a term of endearment to him and Linda. I have observed this family interact for a total of four hours and have not once heard either one of them refer to Ken as the "Ken Monster".

19. I spoke with Catherine, the foster mother on November 29, 1999 inquiring as to how Ken was doing. She stated that since Friday, November 26, 1999, Ken has been laying on the living room floor in fetal position and sucking his thumb. He remains in this position fro approximately 20 to 30 minutes at a time and then will get up and wander around the house aimlessly. Catherine stated that while in this position he does not respond to their attempts to arouse him. This continued until this morning. Catherine stated that he has had a low grade fever as well and was wondering if this is normal behavior for Ken when he is not feeling well. Overall, Catherine stated that she believes that Ken's behavior while in her home has been typical behavior of a toddler. She has noticed signs of improvement in his speech, in socialization, affection, sense of humor, bath and bed time and eating - he is no longer spitting food out nor demonstrating throwing food or utensils as Linda indicates that Ken does at home. Catherine stated that the only time that she has had difficulty with Ken was the afternoon of November 25th and the following morning. I verily believe this to be true. Please refer to Catherine's notes, attached as Exhibit "B".

20. My assessment of the matters of Ken McQuaid are as follows: There is a substantial risk that Ken will suffer emotional harm if he is returned to the primary care and custody of Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid. I have observed Ken's parents interact with Ken. There is concern regarding the level and type of attachment that they have with their son. Little to no forms of physical affection or consoling, negative verbal messages. Ken is demonstrating concerning 'freezing' behaviour and the parents have demonstrated a reluctance to work cooperatively and take an interest in the concerns that have been brought to their attention about their son's developmental delays. A risk assessment has been completed with input from myself, Jennifer Moore and Kim Evans. Jennifer Moore is a co-worker who has also had an opportunity to observe Ken interact with his parents. The risk assessment is a tool designed to assist child protection workers in making a decision as to the risk of future harm to a child. The outcome of the risk assessment is high and clearly indicates the identified areas of concern. Please refer to Exhibit "C". I have also attached a copy of the Safety Assessment which is a tool used to assess the immediate safety of children. Please refer to Exhibit "D". Without information from Dr Murphy regarding the cause of Ken's developmental delays there is room to speculate that the delays may be due to lack of adequate care and environment. A parent capacity assessment would address the concerns regarding quality and type of attachment and the ability of the parents to meet the needs of Ken. The Society has concern that if Ken is returned to his parents at this time that there is a risk of flight and more importantly the parents will increase the risk of developmental delays due to their lack of acknowledging the concerns and their lack of ability to change their parenting attitudes and styles in regard to Ken's present needs.

21. I make these statements with no improper intent.

My name is (full legal name) Linda Prosh

I live in (municipality & province) Township of Mono, County of Dufferin

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. I am the Respondent in this matter and therefore have knowledge of the issues before the court.

2. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "A" are photographs of our home taken after November 22, 1999. They show the changes made to the home and particularly to Ken's room. We have addressed the concerns raised by the CAS in their visit on November 22, 1999 to our home.

3. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "B" is a copy of a letter from our family physician, Dr Stephen Ross dated November 30, 1999.

4. I make this affidavit in support of my Application to have my child returned.

My name is (full legal name) Kim James

I live in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

I, Kim James, of the Town of Orangeville in the County of Dufferin, make oath and say:

1. I am a employed with Dufferin Children's Aid Society as a Child Protection Intake Worker.

2. On November 26, 1999, Jennifer Moore, a co-worker of mine, supervised the visit of Ken McQuaid and his parents. Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid. Jennifer observed much of the same interaction that had taken place in the previous four visits. A notable and positive change is that Ken kissed his mother today for the first time ever. Ken kisses his mother a few more times during the visit when asked by his mother to give her a kiss. Near the end of the visit Bob states that he never kisses him, only hugs him. It has been a regular occurrence that the parents ask Ken over and over if he wants to go home, if he loves them, if he wants to go in the truck, if he remembers their dog and cat. Ken responds to this by retrieving his coat and then parents say no that he can't go. This confuses and upsets Ken. Another pattern that has been prominent during the visits is the negative self messages that they give Ken. "Ken you broke it, bad boy Ken". During this visit Ken was playing with the blinds in the room. The parents made no attempts to redirect Ken and he eventually broke the blinds. Bob gave Ken permission to wreck them "that's okay let him wreck them". Ken said, "I'm not a bad boy". Mom responded by saying, "Ken wrecked it I think". The blind cord was fully extended and a potential choking hazard by now. Bob responds by saying, "they're the ones who say he's never destructive". Mom replies with, "Ken you can hang yourself on that, then we can sue them for having unsafe things". Bob and Linda continue to allow Ken to play with the blinds and Linda says to Ken, "I didn't break them, you're the one playing with them". This single event causes great concern. The parents once again demonstrate that they do not redirect his misbehaviour. Not only that but during their care and supervision they have allowed Ken to place himself in a potentially dangerous situation, indirectly coaching him along with it. Instead of putting Ken's safety needs first they allow him to continue to meet their needs and goals which at this time is to demonstrate to the Society that Ken is destructive and the opportunity to sue the Society for harm to their son. I understand that the parents are upset with the Society at this time but they have not demonstrated adequate parenting. There were two other negative references to Ken, he broke a Mickey Mouse watch and the time that he took Linda's wallet and threw it out. This information is based on Jennifer Moore's case notes and I verily believe them to be true.

3. It is after this visit that Ken began to demonstrate extremely concerning behaviours at the foster home. Ken assumed the fetal position on the floor sucking his thumb. He would maintain this position for approximately 20 to 30 minute intervals. No matter what the foster parents attempted to arouse Ken from this state, Ken would not respond. This behaviour continued over the weekend and after his visits on November 29 and 30. Originally the foster mother thought that Ken's behaviour may have been due to the fact that he had a low grade fever during the weekend. Ken did not have a fever on November 29 and 30.

4. On December 1, Ken did not have a visit with his parents and the foster mother reports that Ken's behaviour was very good. No headbanging, screaming, freezing or fetal position.

5. I observed the visits on November 29 and 30 and noted some areas of improvement. On Monday, Ken's maternal uncle accompanied Linda and Bob to visit with Ken. His uncle demonstrated interactive play with Ken while playing with the blocks and the wooden puzzle Ken kissed his mother again upon request. There continued to be negative self messages. The parents also made a greater attempt to redirect Ken's behaviour. Linda was able to successfully redirect Ken on three occasions by engaging him another appropriate activity. Although there was notable improvement, much of the hour was spent in a teaching capacity and parents observing Ken playing with toys. Ken did throw the blocks again in the visit on Tuesday. Parents continued to set Ken up for disappointment by asking him about going home, etc. Bob did make attempts on Tuesday to console Ken. Ken fell and hit his head on the floor and Bob picked him up, held him, and rocked him in his lap and gave him comforting words.

6. I attended the parents home along with Trish Cox on November 30 to complete a home safety. Trish Cox will be their Family Service Worker when the file is transferred. The house was very clean and it was evident that Linda and Bob had made great efforts to respond to the potentially hazardous conditions that I had identified earlier. We noted some hazards to the parents such as putting alcohol, prescription and nonprescription medication up or under lock, as well as makeup. The locks had been removed from Ken's bedroom, the two bathrooms, a hall closet and the kitchen. Their master bedroom, Bob's two offices and the basement and laundry room doors remain locked. This is acceptable to the Society. The greatest improvement was Ken's bedroom. It has been painted, the potentially hazardous conditions have been addressed, his toys and dresser have been returned to his room. It is pleasant and child focussed. We also advised them to put approved child safety locks on the cabinet doors in the kitchen and bathrooms as well as child safety plugs in the electrical outlets that were still exposed. Linda and Bob informed us that Ken cannot get outside and is not outside unless he is with one of them. We did note that they do have a pool that is surrounded by the house on three sides but there is no fence restricting access to a potentially hazardous situation, whether the pool is filled with water or not. There is also a balcony off the living room which has a large enough space between the cement floor and the railing that would allow Ken to fall two stories.

7. Linda and Bob have made reasonable efforts to comply with the conditions in the agreement with the Society. The conditions set out in the agreement was not an exhaustive list of our concerns as we had stated that this is preliminary action that needs to occur in order to consider possibly returning Ken home and when. There are outstanding concerns that still remain. Linda and Bob have stated that the reason for the locks on the doors was their response to keeping Ken safe. The concern that now arises is how will they address the safety of Ken now that the locks have been removed from some of the doors? What were there safety concerns prior to our involvement that they felt they needed to lock Ken out? They have not demonstrated an ability to redirect Ken's behaviour on a regular basis and they have not received any from of parenting regarding managing children's misbehaviour. Therefore the concern remains that we have removed their means of child management and it has not been adequately replaced to address Ken's behaviour or his needs. The other condition that has not been satisfactorily met to the Society's standard is in regard to the Parent Infant Program. Linda and Bob have met Nina, who will be the Parent Infant Worker and have arranged a home visit with her. What is not satisfactory at this time is neither Linda Nor Bob appear to be interested in the program, they have not taken the time to read the information about the service. They have not understood or recognized the reason for service being to help stimulate Ken due to his developmental delays and that they will be required to be active participants in learning how to interact with him. Nina has informed them that she has rearranged her scheduled appointments to accommodate them at this time and has taken them onto her full caseload although there is an existing wait list for service. This program is designed to assist families that require and want the help. Nina has stated to Linda, Bob and myself that it will not suffice to provide service to this family if the only reason why they are involved is due to compliance with the agreement as it is extremely important that the parents recognize and identify that their child is requiring support services. The Parent Infant Program is a family centered-relationship based intervention.

8. The Society has contacted Diane Benoit, Child Psychiatrist affiliated with Toronto Sick Children's Hospital, and inquired as to whether she would be able to complete a parenting capacity assessment and the earliest availability. Diane informed this Society that she would be able to accommodate this as early as the week between Christmas and New Years and have a report ready by mid January. A general inquiry was made with regard to Ken's fetal position behaviour and Diane responded that this is very concerning.

9. At the time that the Society entered into the agreement with Linda and Bob, some concerns were identified such as; the conditions within the home, the apparent lack of stimulation to Ken, developmental delays of Ken and the lack of parenting knowledge and the parenting capacity. The conditions outlined were to address those identified areas, recognizing that compliance was not necessarily going to result in returning Ken on December 1, as there were other concerns. Since signing the agreement the Society has had an opportunity to observe the parents interact with Ken which has resulted in very concerning inadequacies with parenting, interaction, and attachment. Ken has also demonstrated concerning behaviours that may be related to his visitations with his parents. It is with this new information that the Society does not believe that it would be in Ken's best interests at this time to return home to his parents care and custody. Without the parents demonstrating that they can effectively manage Ken's behaviour and meet his developmental needs, Ken is at risk of further harm.

10. On November 30, I presented this case to our Child Abuse Review Team. It is expected that every Society have a review team that includes persons who are professionally qualified to perform medical, psychological, developmental, educational or social assessments and at least one legally qualified medical practitioner. This is a standard under the Child and Family Services Act. On this day a medical practitioner, a Principal, the Executive Director of Family Transition Place, a Program Manager of Children's Mental Health and Child Protection, as well as myself were present. The case was reviewed and it was the Review Teams decision and recommendation that Linda Prosh and Bob McQuaid be placed immediately on the Child Abuse Registry due to Severe Emotional Abuse to Ken.

11. I make there statements with no improper intent.

My name is (full legal name) Robert McQuaid

I live in (municipality & province) Township of Mono, County of Dufferin

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. I am the Respondent in this matter and therefore have knowledge of the issues before the court.

2. I have had the opportunity to review the most recent affidavits of Kim James dated November 29, 1999 and December 2, 1999.

3. I have grave concerns at the behaviour Ken is currently exhibiting in his Foster environment. There is certain behaviour that is being described that I have never seen him exhibit when in our care.

4. Specifically, Ken has never "frozen" as Ms James describes in her November 29, 1999 affidavit. I have never seen him go into a fetal position as described by Ms James. My wife, Linda Prosh advises me, that she has never witnessed the child exhibit either of these behaviours either.

5. I believe that Ken is feeling frightened and disorientated with the current situation and is acting in an unusual fashion.

6. The CAS had made in issue with us that Ken had not been behaving destructively in Foster care, initially anyway. When Ken started to become destructive at the CAS office during one of our visits, I did not intervene, as I would ordinarily have, in order that the CAS might witness some of the behaviour we had described to him. I am concerned that Ken tried to play on the swings at the Foster home that are in the back yard and that is the reason for his having broken the lock there. It is very much a part of Linda's routine with Ken to play on the swings with him.

7. I wish to reiterate that the environment at the CAS office is entirely unnatural and not conducive to any normal interaction with Ken. Ken is feeling distraught at the separation and needs to come home. We have lined up a number of professionals who are going to assist us in dealing more effectively with Ken. We only ask the opportunity to effect those changes. In order to do so, Ken must be returned home. Ken is very loved by Linda and me. We are both very private with our feelings in a public environment. We look forward to entering into a meaningful relationship with a counsellor in order to assist us. We have made contact with William Weiner, a counsellor in Orangeville. We met with Will on November 30, 1999 and discussed with him our situation, the CAS involvement and our desire to retain him to assist us in parenting. We have another visit set up on December 7, 1999 with Ken so that he might observe us. We have provided our consent to allow Will to discuss this matter with the CAS. We believe that this type of counselling would be significantly more productive than a generic parenting course.

8. The CAS has mentioned to us that they may wish a parenting capacity assessment to be conducted by Hospital for Sick Children or Chedoke McMaster in Hamilton. They have not provided us with a referral or any further information regarding this issue.

9. I make this affidavit in support of my Application to have my child returned.

My name is (full legal name) Trish Cox

I live in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

I, Trish Cox, of the Town or Orangeville in the County of Dufferin, make oath and say:

1. I am a Child Protection and Family Services Worker with The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin. I am also a Registered Nurse with the College of Nurses of Ontario with a B.Sc.N. I have worked extensively with children in clinical and community settings and at one time coordinated and supervised the School Health Support Services for the Dufferin and Dufferin-Peel Boards of Education. I was involved daily in the assessment of the physical, developmental, emotional and social needs of children. I was required to have a comprehensive knowledge of the role, responsibilities and interventions of Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Speech Therapists, Dieticians and Nurses as they worked with children in home and school environments.

2. On December 14th, 1999 I met with Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh. Ken's room was bright and cheerful. The bedding was clean and fresh. The bed was age appropriate. Age appropriate toys were in evidence in the room. The closets contained season appropriate clothing. There was no lock on his door. The other areas of the house which I saw were stark and lacked warmth but were clean and free of safety concerns.

3. Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh, during this visit described concerns related to Ken: 1. head banging on their bodies. Mrs Prosh showed me a 3 inch fading bruise on her groin where Ken had hit her while she was lying in bed. The parents report that Ken does the same on their legs in sensitive areas and that this has been happening as often as everyday or every other day and that this has been occuring for some time. The parents stated that he does not head bang on anything but themselves. 2. spitting at the parents which they report only started in the past two weeks. The parents expressed interest in the visit about how to deal with these behaviours. The parents are presently using different approaches. Mr McQuaid will deal with them with time outs or telling him to stop. Ms Prosh stated that she screamed the last time Ken banged his head on her groin. She sometimes says "no". Advice was given and acknowledged. During the meeting Ken was very busy. He would pull and hang on the curtains, hit his parents and myself, handle objects off limits to him. Mr McQuaid firmly and gently held Ken once when Ken was involved with the curtains. However, neither parent responded to Ken hitting them. During the visit the parents asked questions about toilet training. This was discussed briefly.

4. The parents reported in this visit that the pre-school had asked Ken to be assessed by the Dufferin Association for Community Living, Pre-School Resource Programme as the pre-school felt that there were developmental delays. Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh reported that the pre-school found Ken to be aggressive with other children (hitting, spitting and throwing objects at them). The parents were surprised that the pre-school felt that there were developmental delays and spent some time highlighting what Ken could do and related this to their own milestones as children.

5. During this visit I observed that Ken communication was mainly in the form of echolalia, a compulsive repetition of what is spoken by another person. His speech was clear. He responded to simple one step commands. However, during the end of the interview, as consents were being obtained and the word "CAS" was used, Ken would respond each time with the word "evil".

6. On December 16th, 1999 I met with Lee Rivoire, Teacher and Karen Bowers, Supervisor of Hand-in-Hand Pre-School. They stated that Ken has been attending each day since enrollment with the usual length of stay of 8:30 am to 5:30 pm. The staff are concerned as Ken speaks with echolalia, does not interact with the other children, rarely participates in circle time. They report that he does not know how to play with toys except cause and effect toys. The staff have found over the last two weeks that Ken has difficulty with transitions (going to the washroom, cleaning up, going to circle time) and will scream and tantrum when asked to do these things. The staff state that the parents have told them that they use plastic utensils with Ken as he throws things and they are afraid of being stabbed by him. Ken consistently throws objects at the pre-school and the staff are worried about the safety of the other children. Ken hits the children and spits on them and the staff. The staff is concerned as Ken says "bad boy" with his behaviours and the mother has told the staff she calls him that. The staff report that Ken does not have self-help skills ie. toilet trained, uses a sippy cup. They have noticed that he bangs his head, front and back, on the door, wall, chair and will say to himself "not funny" and laugh, or "that's a bad habit". The staff state that at nap time, Ken does not sleep and will suck his thumb, hit his head with his fist and laugh and rock. He has also gotten up and thrown toys around at other children. The supervisor reports that they had no indication from his parents of any problems with Ken at registration and feel he needs 1:1 supervision. The staff state that Ken leaves his parents easily and is happy to see both of them when they return. Ms Rivoire reports one time that another mother with blonde hair was leaving and Ken attempted to go with her. The staff state that the parents are happy to see Ken on pick up and are interested in how he is doing. Mr McQuaid picks up Ken the majority of the time. They report that Ken has a good appetite, is appropriately dressed, clean and tidy. They also noted that regarding his echolalia, with one exception Ken demonstrated the ability to engage, ask a question and indicate a process with communication. Ken was told that "Tara will bring you that toy". When the girl brought him the toy, Ken asked, "Are you Tara?". I verily believe this to be true.

7. On December 17th, 1999 I met with Nina Little, Infant Development Worker with Dufferin Child and Family Services. She noted that Mr McQuaid was more relaxed with her but that both parents were mainly spectators throughout the visit. She did observe that Mr McQuaid engaged Ken a little with some turntaking. The father, however, asked Ken for his Barney figure and when given it, kept it even though Ken wanted it back. Later when Ken was asked for another toy by his father, Ken would not bring it over. During her assessment visit Ken was playing in the curtains. Mr McQuaid dealt with this by holding Ken on his lap while vigorously patting his back, saying to Ms Little that they are now using zero tolerance. The intervention did not calm Ken or reduce his activity. Ms Little was informed by the parents that Ken was spitting, throwing things at the pre-school and the parents stated that Ken wouldn't be able to stay if the behaviour continues. They reported that Ken had been referred to the Dufferin Association for Community Living by the pre-school staff. Ms Little also suggested a referral to a Speech and Language Therapist for the echolalia. Ms Little noted the following about Ken: 1. Ken remembered activities that he was involved in with her from three weeks ago and was capable of representational play (ie. would feed a baby doll with a bottle). He was also capable of focussing for a significant period of time on a variety of play tasks. 2. when Ken looked into a mirror he would say Ken good boy, or Ken evil and laugh. The parents laughed when he said this. 3. when Ken was shown a crocodile whose mouth opened, his father said to Ken: "look it eats little boys; 4. Ken has limited ability to self care ie. dress and feed himself. The parents state they even load his fork with food and Ken will often eat with his fingers; 5. the developmental assessment (Ages and Stages) indicates that Ken has poor gross motor, problem solving and personal and social skills. Ken's fine motor skills were appropriate. Communication could not be accurately assessed with this tool. Ms Little was very concerned with the severity and number of concerns that she observed and the contrast in ability. She stated that Ken would benefit from and assessment by a child psychiatrist.

8. Information from Dr R Murphy, paediatrician and Wil Weiner, therapist was not available at this time. Their input is necessary to clarify and define aspects of the above observations. Ken McQuaid can present, in isolated and/or controlled circumstances to function within acceptable developmental limits. For example, form a question without prompting which initiates a relationship and relates to his external environment. He is also able to remember past processes and use representational play. Ken, however, for the most part is below in many of his developmental milestones and demonstrates severe aggressive hehaviours. He also demonstrates self-soothing and self-stiming behaviours. As well, the parents inconsistencies in parenting and unusual interactions with Ken is concerning to the Society. A parenting capacity assessment is still seen as necessary because of the latter and the fact that no interventions were put in place prior to the involvement of the Society.

9. I make this statement with no improper intent.

TO THE RESPONDENTS:
A COURT CASE HAS BEEN STARTED AGAINST YOU IN THIS COURT. THE DETAILS ARE SET OUT ON THE ATTACHED PAGES.
THE FIRST COURT DATE IS (date) July 5, 2000 AT 11:00 a.m. or as soon as possible after that time at: address
10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, Ontario, L9W 3P9.

If you have also been served with a notice of motion, there may be an earlier court date and you or your lawyer should come to court for the motion.

IF YOU WANT TO OPPOSE ANY CLAIM IN THIS CASE, you or your lawyer must prepare an answer (Form 10 - a blank copy should be attached), serve a copy on the applicant children's aid society and all other parties and file a copy in the court office with an affidavit of service (Form 6B). YOU HAVE ONLY 30 DAYS AFTER THIS APPLICATION IS SERVED ON YOU (60 DAYS IF THIS APPLICATION IS SERVED ON YOU OUTSIDE CANADA OR THE UNITED STATES) TO SERVE AND FILE AN ANSWER. IF YOU DO NOT, THE CASE WILL GO AHEAD WITHOUT YOU AND THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.

WARNING: This case is subject to case management, which means that the case runs on a timetable. That timetable says that the following steps have to be finished by the following number of days from the start of this case:

You should consider getting legal advice about this case right away. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may be able to get help from your local Legal Aid office. (See your telephone directory under LEGAL AID).

APPENDIX

The terms and conditions that the applicant society purposes for the child's supervision are as follows: (Set out terms and conditions in numbered paragraphs.)

-End of Document-

Attached:
Table of Contents

Attached:
Table of Contents Volume 2

Attached:
Affidavit of Trish Cox

My name is (full legal name) Patricia Louise Cox

I work in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. I have now been involved with this family for a period of 7 months. During this time, I have obtained the following information about Mr McQuaid, Ms Prosh and their son, Ken McQuaid:

i) On January 6, 2000 I spoke to Wil Weiner, behaviour therapist, who reported that the parents were very interested in being parents and were slowly learning what it takes to be a parent. He stated they did not have a lot of support around how to deal with parenting concerns. Mr Weiner stated that the mother had more difficulty with younger children and believed that both parents would do better when Ken is older. He described Ken as an internal child and that this was the result of not a lot of parent/child interaction. Mr Weiner stated that the parents needed a lot of teaching and support related to parenting advice around emotional, social and play development. On January 14, 2000, at a case conference regarding Ken, Mr Weiner stated that Ken had difficulty with emotional regulation. Mr Weiner described Ken as able to engage in play and wanting to involve his parents. He stated that Ken was a strong child and could do significant damage and be difficult to control. On April 27, 2000 Mr Weiner reported that the parents were progressing; more attentive and involved and more aware of Ken's needs. Mr Weiner stated that the mother's attentiveness was a working issue and that the parents needed to be "pushed to do rather than talk". He stated that Ken's play was more abstract, speech clearer and talking more. Mr Weiner's goals were to focus on parenting and behaviour concerns, toilet training and how to handle disagreements. On May 5, 2000, Mr Weiner provided a verbal report for a case conference. He stated that he sees the parents and Ken every two weeks and had seen a positive change with Ken's language ie chatty, singing, saying yes now, acknowledging himself and another. Mr Weiner states he had been encouraging pretend play by the parents with Ken and now there was elaborate and interactional pretend play. He noticed that the parents are enjoying being parents. They are taking Ken to the park, playland at MacDonald's, reading. Mr Weiner planned to stay involved for the next 6 months until the parents and Ken accomplished toiletting and later, the transition from day care to school. Mr Weiner's intervention has varied from weekly to biweekly involvement with the family. I verily believe this to be true.

ii) On January 7, 2000 I spoke with Karen Bowers, Supervisor of Hand-in-Hand Day Care who stated that Ken had been removed by them from the day care until further notice as a result of his severe behavioural problems and the effect on the other children and staff. Ms Bowers expressed concern about remarks and comments by Ken's mother about Ken. Ms Bowers reported that the mother had said to Ken "you pest", "bad boy", and "look at you Ken, Why can't you be like the other children. You were such a nice baby - What happened to you?". Ms Bowers stated that she has only seen this kind of behaviour in children who have suffered mental abuse. I verily believe this to be true.

iii) Ken presently attends the Women's Resource Centre three times a week and has been since February 1, 2000. Jill Cutter, a worker at the centre, states that when he first appeared there were difficult days. However, his behaviour and speech have improved as he interacts more with other children. However, Ms Cutter reported concern with Ms Prosh in a number of areas: limited interest in Ken's accomplishments at the centre ie when Ms Prosh comes to get Ken she doesn't go with him to see his craft. She asks if he has a craft and then leaves. Ms Cutter also reported an incident where she notice that Ken smelled of perfume and also as if he had had a bowel movement. The staff asked Ms Prosh about this and Ms Prosh stated that she wondered if Ken had soiled himself earlier and so had put perfume on him. Note: it is the expectation of the centre that mother's with children over the age of 2 change their children's diapers. Another worker Ms Mary Lynn Richardson reported that at one point Ken had a Band-Aid on that was loose and noticed underneath a substantial cut. She stated that it looked like a slice or piece of skin was missing. Ms Richardson changed the Band-Aid and then ten minutes later, Ms Prosh came into the room and was informed of the Band-Aid change. Ms Prosh said there wasn't a cut and that he just wanted a bandaid. Ms Richardson stated that Ms Prosh just disregarded the whole thing, leaving the staff to be confused. Ms Richardson also reported that at times when Ms Prosh enters the room Ken tantrums. She reports that she has observed Ms Prosh yelling at Ken and that Ms Prosh needs to learn to redirect and be positive with him. Ms Richardson also states that one day Ken was sick with green discharge from his nose and he was coughing. Ms Prosh responded to the centre's concern and the centre's request to leave by asking Ken if he wanted to go. Ms Richardson stated that it took twenty minutes before Ken and Ms Prosh left and that it was a struggle for the staff to get her to go home. Ms Richardson also noted that Ms Prosh wanted Ken to colour Ms Prosh's pictures when Ken wanted to do otherwise. Ms Richardson stated she feels that Ken's delays are the result of lack of socialization. Ms Richardson, on April 19, 2000, reported that they still saw some echolalia. Ken would do some crafts but did not interact with other children. Ken moved around the room and played with toys. She reported that the longer he's in the setting and with a increasing number of children, the more frustration there is in Ken. The centre staff have suggested that Ms Prosh help on Wednesdays and stay in the room to obtain parenting ideas from the teachers. I verily believe this to be true.

iv) On May 23, 2000 I spoke with Debbie Launspach, Supervisor with Sand Box Tech, a nursery school that Ken has attended for the last three months. Ms Launspach stated that she has had some concerns regarding Ken and his parents. For example, approximately six weeks prior, Mr McQuaid, in front of Ken and the other parents, asked Ms Launspach "How's my retarded son doing?". Ms Launspach stated that the school staff had been working with the mother and child on emotional interactions ie Ken giving his mother a kiss. Ms Launspach reported that Ms Prosh appeared reluctant with this, as if she was not sure she was going to receive one. Ms Launspach stated that Ken was sitting more at circle and participated more with activities. She noted, however, that he "freaks out with toiletting; tantrums". They have not noticed head banging or self stimulating behaviour. There is aggression with other children which they treat with timeouts. On May 31, 2000 during a case conference, Ms Launspach stated that despite progress in behaviour the following concerns exist: after speaking a sentence or two he goes back into himself; he is still different from his peers though is responding to what his peers have engaged him in; and toiletting is a problem, he lands on the floor, yelling and screaming. I verily believe this to be true.

v) Parent Infant Consultant with the Parent Infant Program, Nina Little Alcorn has continued to be involved with the family for the last seven months with visits averaging once or twice monthly. On April 20, 2000 Ms Little Alcorn reported that the parents have been present for each visit with good follow through with appointments and phone calls. Ms Little Alcorn was concerned about unnecessary qualifying comments by the mother. She stated that she observed Ken referring to himself as a brat. Ms Little Alcorn stated that she had given Ms Prosh activities to encourage nurturing; permitting a kid to be a kid and the parent to be a parent in a safe setting, encouraging memory building activities. During this discussion Ms Little Alcorn also described an incident on March 17, 2000 in the speech pathologist's office where Ms Little Alcorn was doing a joint visit with Kindrey Rowlands, SLP. The session generally went well for Ken although Ms Little Alcorn reported that there were odd comments and raised voice from the mother. The mother was not feeling well and on antibiotics. However, at one point, Ms Little Alcorn reported that Ken climbed onto a chair and was on his knees on the chair when the chair fell backwards and crashed. Ken hit his head and cried. Ms Prosh, who was writing a cheque, stayed in her seat, barely looked up and yelled "stop crying, that's what you get for acting up. Ken it's not that bad". Ken sought comfort from his mother but received it from Ms Little Alcorn and Kindrey Rowlands. At one point, with her back to Ken, still writing the cheque, Ms Prosh patted Ken's back and said, "It's not that bad sweetie". There was no hug, kiss or eye contact. Ms Little Alcorn reports also that Ms Prosh stated that she still had problems controlling him in the mall, at Burger King and at the airport. Ms Little Alcorn wondered at that time how much could be taught and felt that the parents needed support in child management especially limit setting, discipline, rules and boundaries, compliance and especially how to deal with emotional needs. On May 31, 2000 Ms Little Alcorn stated that the latest test showed delays in speech and language and possible marginal delays in gross motor but that this was not a concern now. Ms Little Alcorn was concerned with Ken's fit with his peers. Ms Alcorn Little reported on June 16, 2000 that Ken's higher level of thinking was improving as well as his mood and emotional regulatory abilities. She reported that effort had been noticed with Ms Prosh in particular, however, Mr McQuaid relationship with Ken was more difficult to assess. Ms Little Alcorn was not sure how Ken would continue to progress and states an assessment by the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program would be very helpful. Ms Alcorn Little states that she will continue to be involved with the family only for approximately another four months until Ken reaches the age of four. (see report attached Exhibit A). I verily believe this to be true.

vi) Kindrey Rowlands, Speech and Language Pathologist has been involved with Ken in weekly speech and language intervention sessions from February 18, 2000 to June 8, 2000 for a total of 14 sessions. Ms Rowlands reports that Ms Prosh has actively participated in sessions and that Ken was also accompanied by his father on occasion. She reports that both parents followed through with home practice suggestions and provided regular verbal reports of Ken's progress with therapy goals in everyday situations at home. Although he has demonstrated steady and marked progress in the relatively short time since he was initially assessed, Ken's speech development and his expressive and receptive language skills continue to fall Below Average for his age. Ms Rowlands recommends that Ken continue to receive speech and language intervention focused primarily on developing his social and his conversation skills; continued participation in a program that facilitates Ken's interaction with other children and that Ken's speech and language development be re-assessed in the fall of 2000 (see Exhibit B). I verily believe this to be true.

vii) On April 12, 2000 Debbie Taylor, Senior Program Manager, with the Society received a phone call from Alice Veenman, Mono Township Council Member and Carl Ross, Director of Social Services. They reported to Ms Taylor that Mr McQuaid had spoken to council about "the kid" (his son) being taken by the Society without an appropriate complaint. Ms Veenman and Mr Ross stated that Mr McQuaid then described the messiness in his home, the gratings out of the floor, the the blind cords dangling, and the broken crib. He continued to refer to his son throughout the presentation as "the kid" and indicated that he felt that the Society was inappropriately involved with his family. I verily believe this to be true.

viii) This worker met with Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh a number of times. It was observed that on each visit Ken was improving in speech and language and social skills though not at par with his peers. Information regarding the Easter Seals diaper program and the Parent Relief Program was given to Mr McQuaid during a drop by visit. Parents reported some destructive behaviour such a destroying videos, throwing toys and frustration with toilet training. However, at the case conference of May 31, 2000 Ms Prosh indicated that Ken was much easier to handle and that they did not need to be on top on Ken as much. Ms Prosh stated that Ken was more attached to her now and only bangs his head on her when he is frustrated. During the visits there was evidence of toys, appropriate bedding and clothing. There was no lock on his door and the drawers were still out of the dresser. I verily believe this to be true.

ix) I spoke with Dr Bakht, child and adolescent psychiatrist, on March 3, 2000 and later met with him June 6, 2000. Dr Bakht stated that, initially Ken, on referral was 3, and at a local day care for three weeks. He reported that the father was fairly bitter and angry with the Children's Aid Society but that the mother was composed and gave fairly honest information and admitted her responsibility in not being an acceptable mother. Dr Bakht stated that Ms Prosh had been most helpful as the peacemaker with her husband and his anger at the system. Dr Bakht stated that the father has trouble with trusting. Dr Bakht reported that the parents described Ken at that time as going into a rampage when tired/bored resulting in hitting, biting, destructive behaviour at home and at the day care. The psychiatrist reported that Ken was not on medication and that his physical health was fine. Dr Bakht stated that both parents are intellectually superior but lacking the social skills to take care of themselves and their child. Dr Bakht reported that he originally saw Ken with difficulties with speech and restless/hyperactive behaviour. Dr Bakht stated that when children are not stimulated or kept contained, they become more hyper. Dr Bakht states that Ken was more lively and able to have a rapport with the psychiatrist with some bright feelings of happiness. Dr Bakht stated that the interaction between Ms Prosh and Ken and Mr McQuaid and Ken in his setting is okay. Initially, Dr Bakht's provisional diagnosis was neglect of the child or ADD. However, as Ken's behaviour and abilities have improved, his final diagnosis was parental neglect of the child with developmental (social and language) delays secondary to neglect. He stated that the parents love Ken and the neglect was not intentional but with their emotional and financial difficulties and isolation, they became emotionally and physically distanced from their child. Dr Bakht stated he has provided the parents with reassurance, psychoeducational information regarding child rearing, good parenting, responding to cues and presently sees the family monthly. The Society's concerns regarding the parent's ability to apply their knowledge at an emotional level was described to the Dr Bakht An assessment of Ken by the Child Advocacy Assessment Program at Chedoke McMaster Hospital was discussed. Dr Bakht supported the decision as it would provide a thorough and comprehensive assessment and identify the degree of the delay and implications for the future and provide recommendations for Ken, his family and the professionals involved with them.

x) On June 20, 2000, following a call from Dr Bakht to this writer, I spoke with Dr Bakht. Dr Bakht reports that Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh had indicated through their lawyer that they did not want to participate in an assessment with the Child Advocacy Assessment Program. Dr Bakht states that he supports completely the assessment as the assessments locally have been scattered and a comprehensive assessment would be instrumental in identifying the degree of the delay and implications for the future and provide recommendations for Ken, his family and the professional involved with them. Dr Bakht reported that he will meet with Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh and indicate his continued support of the assessment.

xii) Ken is clearly moving positively towards being able to master his age appropriate developmental milestones. However, he is still below average despite significant intervention by many professionals. Mr McQuaid and Ms Prosh have complied with all requests and followed through on all interventions. However, statements and behaviours by them indicate difficulty in applying these on a day to day basis. Ken McQuaid was found to have significant developmental delays secondary to parental neglect. The concerns raised by the professionals continue to demonstrate to the Society that Ken still at risk of neglect. Mr McQuaid's statement to the Township Council indicates an inability to recognize his role in neglect with his child. The Society feels that there is a continued need to be involved to ensure the continued work with Ken and to monitor his progress. The Society would like the assessment with the Child Advocacy Assessment Program to proceed to provide a thorough and comprehensive assessment and to identify the degree of the delay and the implications for the future and provide recommendations for Ken, his family and professionals involved with them.

xiii) I make this statement with no improper intent.

who will be asking the court for an order for the item(s) listed at the end of this notice.

If this material is missing, you should talk to the court officer immediately.

The person making this motion is also relying on the following documents in the continuing record: (List documents.)

past affidavits

If you want to oppose this motion or to give your own views, you should talk to your own lawyer and prepare your own affidavit, serve it on all other parties not later than 4 days before the date above and file it at the court office not later than 2 days before that date. Only written and affidavit evidence will be allowed at a motion unless the court gives permission for oral testimony. You may bring your lawyer to the motion.

IF YOU DO NOT COME TO THE MOTION, THE COURT MAY MAKE AN ORDER WITHOUT YOU AND ENFORCE IT AGAINST YOU.

State the order or orders requested on this motion.

An order for an assessment of Ken McQuaid by the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program at Chedoke McMaster Hospital, Department of Paediatrics pursuant to section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

NOTE: You must attach a Summary of Court Cases (Form 8E) to this notice of motion.

My name is (full legal name) Patricia Louise Cox.

The attached is a diary of all the steps in this case and any other relevant court cases involving:

1. any of the parties; or
2. child who is part of this case or whose interests are part of this case.

My name is (full legal name) Patricia Louise Cox

I work in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. I am a child protection and family services worker with the Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin. I have been involved with this family for seven months.

2. Ken McQuaid has been assessed by a number of professionals in the community for the significant delays that he presented when first brought to the attention of the Society. These professionals have also provided interventions which have allowed Ken to move positively towards reaching his developmental milestones, especially in the areas of speech and social/emotional development. However, Ken still presents with delays and was found to be below average in speech and language development by his Speech and Language Pathologist, Kindrey Rowlands. Nina Little Alcorn has expressed concern regarding his development socially and emotionally. The nursery school staff have identified that Ken is different. Dr Bakht, child and adolescent psychiatrist, has diagnosed Ken as having developmental delays (language and social/emotional) secondary to parent neglect. He stated to this worker that a comprehensive assessment of Ken would be useful as the assessments done to date have been scattered and therefore he supports a comprehensive and thorough assessment of Ken to identify the degree of the delay and implications for the future and to provide recommendations for Ken, his family and professionals involved with them. Ms Rowlands, Ms Little Alcorn and Ms Launspach with the nursery school also stated that they felt that this assessment would be useful for them in their work with Ken. I verily believe this to be true.

3. Ms Prosh, at a case conference of May 31, 2000, stated that she did not have any objection to this assessment but expressed concern regarding her husband's response to the suggestion. Ms Prosh was advised at the case conference that the referral to the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program had been initiated in February by this writer as it was not known at that time how Ken would progress and this writer knew that it typically took four to six months at referral time to receive an assessment date. At the time that the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program referral was initiated it was also not known to this writer that the parents had found a psychiatrist that could provide a diagnosis.

4. The Child Advocacy and Assessment Program assessment (see Exhibit A) was to begin June 28, 2000. I spoke with Ms Linda Harris with the program on June 23, 2000 and they have agreed to delay the first meeting date to July 7, 2000 to facilitate this court matter with this motion. They will add an additional date to the assessment at the end of the assessment period.

5. I spoke with Dr Bakht June 23, 2000. Dr Bakht states that the parents reported to him at a recent meeting that they will participate in the assessment as long as the information obtained will not be used against them. I stated to Dr Bakht that I had a responsibility to the child under legislation to act on any information that might effect the well-being of the child. I verily believe this to be true.

6. The Society has seen improvement in Ken but despite significant intervention by many providers Ken still is below average in his speech and language and social and emotional development. Dr Bakht has diagnosed him as having developmental delays secondary to parent neglect. The Child Advocacy and Assessment Program will assist Ken, the parents, the professionals and the Society in determining the degree of delay, implications for the future and to provide recommendations. Ken will be four years old in October. The assessment will be completed just prior to that birth date. The information received will help Ken, for the following year, to prepare for school where he will be introduced to very complex social interactions and require complex speech to effectively communicate his needs and to learn. The assessment will be useful also, in providing information relating to the parents and their relationship with Ken and this information will therefore also help the professionals assist the parents to provide for the social and emotional needs of the child.

My name is (full legal name) Robert McQuaid

I live in (municipality & province) Township of Mono, County of Dufferin

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. I am the Respondent in this matter and therefore have knowledge of the issues before the court.

2. On January 19, 2000 a consent was executed in which we allowed the Children's Aid Society (CAS) to supervise Ken for six months. We entered into this agreement as the quid pro quo in response to crown wardship application. I assume that further discussion of events leading up to that consent is out of order. This affidavit gives the facts I believe the court should consider in response to efforts by CAS to extend its supervision of Kenneth McQuaid and to force attendance at the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program. We initially agreed to retain the services of the professionals currently involved in Ken's life, so as to have some control and direction in the services and the professionals involved. It was my understanding that agreeing to retain all of these professionals was to be seen as an option instead of going through a CAAP assessment. My concern with the CAAP assessment or similar assessment centres is that the referral comes from the CAS and there is a strong potential for prejudgment.

3. Further, after our last court attendance, Linda and I were advised after the Order was consented to that the CAS has recommended that we be placed on the Child Abuse Registry. No mention of this intent was ever made leading upto the execution of the consent. These actions by the CAS strike me as being covert and excessive in the circumstances. We were having some difficulty dealing with Ken. We are now seeking the appropriate professional intervention to address these issues. Linda and I are committed to helping Ken and ourselves however we can. We are not merely jumping through hoops, as the CAS insinuates, in order to comply with the Order. We are doing what is in Ken's best interest and are committed to continuing to do so. We have learned a considerable amount about the resources available to parents in our community and we are taking advantage of them and will continue to do so.

4. We have strictly complied with the consent.

1. We have taken Ken to Dr Murphy and followed his recommendations.
2. We allowed Nina Little Alcorn of the Infant-Parent Program to visit Ken in our home whenever she wished.
3. We have employed William Weiner who is a behavioural therapist to assist us in understanding Kenneth and responding appropriately to some of his behavioural concerns.
4. The Dufferin Association for Community Living refused to treat Ken initially, because his development was too advanced, later they did attend him a few times.
5. We have been attending a Speech Therapist who has been providing Ken with help in his language and communication.
6. We signed all consents requested by CAS.
7. We cooperated with TrishCox who has performed drop-by visits.
8. We attended child psychiatrist Dr Bakht at Peel Memorial Hospital monthly starting in February 2000. Until this motion, he never criticized our family, or referred us to any other treatment.
9. We have arranged for additional day care services not required by the consent, keeping him in some form of daycare regularly since December, 1999.

4. CAS now requests that we engage in the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program. This program is an abuse screening program that is designed to ascertain whether any abuse has occurred to a child. It is designed to screen and assess the parents and their parenting capacity. It is akin to the SCAN program at Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. The CAS was notified of these appointments by way of letter dated February 10, 2000, received in their offices on February 18, 2000. The CAS knew of these appointments but waited over three months to advise Linda or myself of these appointments. When Linda was first advised of these appointments, she initially indicated she might be willing to attend. She was led to believe that this facility was a treatment facility. She was unaware until Will Weiner inquired into the nature of the program, that it was a facility intended to screen for abuse. I verily believe that we need to focus on providing Ken with help, not trying to finger point. I am advised by Evelyn Huber and believe it to be true that she spoke with Linda Harris of the CAAP program on June 27, 2000 and that Linda Harris confirmed to her that the question asked of them by the CAS was whether Linda and I are able to parent Kenneth. Different professionals would see Kenneth that would meet with Linda or I. The report and recommendations would be sent to the CAS. There are no speech therapist or occupational therapists. When Linda Harris was asked what the difference between what their program offers from the help currently being provided to my family she advised Evelyn Huber was that they were specifically geared towards a parenting capacity assessment.

5. Our family has been working very closely with Will Weiner since the end of November, 1999. Mr Weiner has been invaluable in providing Linda and me with parenting insight. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "A" is a true copy of a report written by Will Weiner, who was provided with the CAS material that is currently before the Court. I am advised by Evelyn Huber and believe it to be true that she discussed the current Court proceedings with Will Weiner and provided him with the material. This report does not support a need for a parenting capacity assessment.

6. A report from Debbie Launspach is attached as Exhibit B. She does not agree with the dire prognosis attributed to her by Trish Cox. I do not recall using the word "retarded" attributed to me but if such a remark was made by myself it certainly was not made in the context Trish Cox and the CAS now elect to place it for the purposes of this motion. I love my son dearly and know him to be a bright, interesting and happy child as confirmed by Will Weiner. I am advised by Evelyn Huber and believe it to be true that she discussed the current situation with Ms Launspach on Friday June 23, 2000. Ms Launspach advised Evelyn Huber, that had Trish Cox not contacted her, none of her or her staff members would have suspected CAS involvement. Ms Launspach has been in the child care business for over 15 years and has considerable experience in dealing with all sorts of children and their families. Debbie Launspach advised Evelyn Huber and I believe it to be true that she sees it as a positive sign that Ken is sometimes reluctant to come to the Day Care centre as it indicates his happiness at staying with his parents, which whom apppears to be very attached and bonded. Ms Launspach has never indicated that she is concerned that Linda and I are not involved enough with Ken, or that we are unwilling to help, listen or learn.

7. Here and elsewhere, Trish Cox notes Ken repeating self-deprecating comments. She omits the true fact that one of Ken's most common utterances in public is "Ken's a smart boy". Trish Cox and Nina Little note an incident in which Ken fell in Kindrey Rowlands' office. This was not significant enough for Kindrey Rowlands to mention in her own report, attached to the affidavit of Trish Cox.

8. Nothing in Kindrey Rowland's report suggests that the parents are unwilling or unqualified to promote Ken's speech development. Neither Will Weiner or Debbie Launspach indicates any concern that Linda and I are not committed to parenting Kenneth and providing him with any and all assistance possible.

9. Dr Bakht has never made the diagnoses to us reported by Trish Cox. Evelyn Huber advises me and I believe it to be true that she has had a number of discussions with Dr Bakht and that when she inquired whether he had made a specific diagnosis of parental neglect, he denied that. He indicated that it was impossible to make a firm diagnosis and that one of his considerations at the outset, before spending any time with the family, had to be whether developmental delays were as a result of parental neglect. He advised that in the context of his treatment at his office and not having had more contact with the family in different settings than a clinic one, it was impossible for him to make any diagnosis as to whether or not there had been neglect.

10. Trish Cox misrepresents a report to Mono Council. One of the topics of my talk was false allegations by CAS. Kid is a friendly colloquialism for child. The complete verbatim transcript from the published minutes of Mono Council is:

"Mr Robert McQuaid attended on Council to express his concerns with the actions of the Dufferin Children's Aid Society and to ask Council to use its influence with regard to the appointment of the Society's board of directors and its executive committee. Mayor Creelman confirmed that it is County Council which appoints CAS board members, and that this matter would be brought up at the next County Council meeting by the Mayor and Deputy-Mayor Veenman, that they would check out the facts and advise Mr McQuaid of their findings".

11. Trish Cox criticizes me for addressing Mono Council, and by implication, the other political remedies I have and will continue to seek. Exercising one's rights as a citizen is not to be condemned, and is not a form of child-abuse. Since my experience in this action, I have been astounded at and continue to experience the vast sweeping powers of the CAS and the community members involved in the CAS. As the CAS is currently involved with our family I will inform myself and become a more active member of the community and the CAS. I strongly believe that if you feel strongly about something, you should follow through with action as Linda, Ken and I have done in response to the concerns raised by the CAS. My level of commitment should indicate my general level of commitment to becoming involved and informing myself. This characteristic is certainly influencing Linda any my current involvement level in helping Ken.

12. On November 29, 1999 CAS filed documents in this case moving to place the parents, Linda Prosh and me, on the Child Abuse Register. Three days later, following a contested hearing, Judge Allen returned custody of Ken to us. Notwithstanding this order, CAS followed though and did place us on the Child Abuse Register. I believe it was inconsistent with the court's finding and premature in that no final determination had been made. Linda and I are now on the Registry.

13. The chronology of events surrounding the report to the Child Abuse Register and the Child Advocacy & Assessment Program follows:

Jan 29, 00

Robert McQuaid applies for CAS membership by email a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit "C".

Feb 1, 00

CAS types letter to Robert McQuaid and Linda Prosh reporting them to the Child Abuse Register a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit "D".

Feb 3, 00

Robert McQuaid pays $3 in cash to Irene Beazley for CAS membership

Feb 9, 00

Irene Beazley sends bylaws to Robert McQuaid following phone request.

Feb 10, 00

Chedoke-McMaster sends letter to CAS confirming appointment dates.

Feb 18, 00

CAS receives above letter from McMaster but withholds it from McQuaid and Prosh for over three months.

I am concerned that my attempts to become involved with the CAS as a member, and my subsequently running for a Directorship has prompted significant personal animosity towards me by the CAS.

14. Shown to me now and attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true copy of the Brigance Pre-School Screen of Ken administered by Joyce Cook on December 20, 1999. DACL refused to assist Ken because his score of 76 was above their development threshold of 60.

15. Shown to me now and attached as Exhibit "F" is a true copy of the Ages and Stages test of Ken administered by N K Little Alcorn on December 16, 1999. Ken's score was below the threshold on 3 categories, while his total score of 165 was just below the combined minimal scores of 170. However, when I completed the items scored by Nina Little as "to check" with my own knowledge of Ken, he scored well within the normal overall score, above the threshold on all categories but personal-social.

16. I have conducted extensive research into the CAS Court cases and court findings in relation to this administrative body and believe that reform is necessary for a body with such sweeping powers at first instance that all but a few people have the financial resources to respond to. Therefore, I pursued and will continue to pursue political remedies through the Mono Council appeal, and by becoming a member of the CAS, along with many other similarly situated parents. At the annual general meeting of CAS held on June 20, 2000, the vote for directors was:

Cathy Chmilnitzky 69 votes
Marianne Breadner 67 votes
Janice Jordan 67 votes
John Christie 66 votes
Lillian Brewer 17 votes
Robert T McQuaid 16 votes

17. It is my intention to continue to exercise my political rights and freedoms in demanding legislative reform in this area. That fact has nothing to do with the current situation with my family. We are thriving. The professionals who know us best, being Debbie Launspach, Will Weiner and Dr Bakht are nothing if not positive about our progress, commitment and interest.

18. We have exceeded all requirements and suggestions made to us but that is not the point. We have done everything possible to meet Ken's best interest and that is the point. We are not only going through the motions of attending at the offices of various professionals that we have retained, but we have thrown ourselves wholeheartedly into the various treatment programs we have participated in: the professionals agree. There is no protection issue.

19. At this juncture Ken's best interest would not be served in subjecting him to yet another batter of professionals whose intention is to find a reason for some of Ken's delays and not provide constructive assistance in addressing some of those issues. We are will beyond the finger pointing stage.

20. I make this affidavit in response to the current motion and application before the Court.

My name is (full legal name) Patricia Louise Cox

I work in (municipality & province) Orangeville, Ontario

and I swear/affirm that the following is true:

Set out the statements of fact in consecutively numbered paragraphs. Where possible, each numbered paragraph should consist of one complete sentence and be limited to a particular statement of fact. If you learned a fact from someone else, you must give that person's name and state that you believe that fact to be true.

1. The Children's Aid Society of Dufferin County has been involved with Mr McQuaid, Ms Prosh and their son Kenneth for approximately 10 months. As a result of our intervention and recommendations in the original supervision order, Ken has made strides. Had the Society not identified concerns related to Ken's social, emotional and speech development, and determined the need for professional assistance for Kenneth and his parents, we wonder what Ken would look like today. As it is, as identified in the reports of Nina Little Alcorn and Kindry Rowlands, Ken still presents with developmental delays. We note that Dr Bakht, child and adolescent psychiatrist recommends the following:

1. Kenneth should continue to receive speech therapy to improve his language skills.
2. A behaviour interventionist should remain involved with Kenneth to reinforce positive and acceptable behaviour.
3. He should continue to be exposed in stimulating environment to improve social skills.
4. Parents should continue to receive parental conseling through the local family-counseling agency for improving parental skills.
5. Kenneth should be periodically seen by a developmental pediatrician for assessing his growth and development.
6. A child psychiatrist should regularly monitor his emotional growth and provide support and encouragement to the parent for maintaining their cooperation with various professionals helping Kenneth.

   This multidisciplinary team approach would greatly help to improve Kenneth's physical and emotional growth.

Given the fact that Kenneth continues to present with delays and along with Dr Bakht recommendations and the positive role that the Society has had in assisting Ken to move forward to date, the Society feels the need to maintain a presence that will monitor and provide positive direction.

2. I make this statement with no improper intent.