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).

THE CHILD(REN) (List all children in this case.)

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.)

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.

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.