A court ruled a province’s child custody approach defied the law’s intent to prioritize a child’s well-being.
The Department of Social Development reports improvements, while a court ruling reveals existing problems. This ruling questioned whether officials are adhering to the law’s core intention, which prioritizes the child’s needs above all else.
Jim Mehan, a deputy minister, told a legislative committee that things are improving. Although, he did admit that they lack solid data to support this assertion.
Judge Kathleen Quigg wrote about a specific case involving a twelve-year-old boy. She argued that the province’s approach directly contradicted the new law. Quigg described the province’s logic as “absurd” because it would allow anyone, except a parent, to request contact with a child. This was detailed in her decision.
She emphasized that courts should prevent inefficient decisions. The law shouldn’t produce unreasonable outcomes that disregard the child’s rights and fail to focus on their best interests.
The legislature passed the Child and Youth Well-Being Act in 2022, but it only became law in January 2024. Its goal was to strengthen child protection measures, especially in cases involving the removal of children from unsafe homes.
The new law allows the province to place children with relatives. This helps maintain crucial family connections. Mehan explained that the old law favored parents, while the current law prioritizes the child significantly more.
However, a specific court case presented a different picture, particularly concerning a boy known as “B.” In this case, the court concluded that the province had failed to follow the law.
“B.’s” father struggled to properly care for his son, which led the province to take guardianship. They then placed him in a group home. Regardless, B. and his father maintained a loving relationship.
A judge granted B.’s father the right to visit his son. The province appealed this decision, arguing that only the minister has the authority to grant visit requests.
The appeal court upheld the father’s right to see his son, clarifying that the law doesn’t prevent judges from ordering contact. While the minister can grant contact, the court isn’t obligated to await this decision.
Quigg noted that delays could harm the child and negatively affect their connection with their family. These connections are extremely important for well-being.
A department spokesperson declined to comment on whether they would appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that they are still reviewing the court’s decision.
Megan Mitton, a Green Party member, highlighted that Quigg’s ruling exposes a fundamental flaw within the act. Mitton expressed concern that the law isn’t consistently beneficial. She said that; the primary objective was to focus on the child’s well-being. This law isn’t working in all cases, which is frustrating.
The court emphasized that B. expressed a desire to see his father. Mehan mentioned how the new act emphasizes a child’s rights, allowing them to be heard in decisions.
Quigg’s ruling underlined that children can’t request contact under the current law. This responsibility falls on parents, who might lack the necessary means. She argued that this completely ignores the child’s rights.
