Former P.E.I. director of child protection comes in for 'substantial criticism' in Supreme Court ruling & More News Here

Prince Edward Island’s former director of child protection comes underneath “substantial criticism” in a landmark Supreme Court of Canada child custody ruling involving a boy now residing in southern Alberta, says a legislation professor aware of the case. 

Rollie Thompson, who lectures on household legislation and child protection points on the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, says the division wants to have interaction in some self-reflection over the case. 

“People need to take a hard look at the actions in this case, and other cases of the [former] director of child protection,” Thompson mentioned in an interview with CBC News. 

“In this case, the director removed the child from the maternal grandmother and sent the child to the natural father who had not much — well, no relationship with the child at first — and they plainly put their thumb on the scales in favour of the natural father and against the maternal grandmother.”

He mentioned that method “was rejected as a view by the trial judge and by the Supreme Court.” 

Wendy McCourt was Prince Edward Island’s director of child protection on the time of the occasions described in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. 

She has since retired.

CBC News tried to succeed in her for remark about her actions as described in the ruling, however she didn’t return cellphone calls.

Decisions not made ‘calmly’

Officials with Child and Family Services mentioned they can not touch upon particular circumstances, when CBC News requested an interview.

But an emailed assertion mentioned: “The cases and families that we work with often have multiple levels of complexity and our staff do not take any decisions involving children and families lightly. 

“These choices usually are not made in silos, they’re made with enter from these linked personally and professionally with the child(ren) and household and in conjunction with skilled scientific judgment that’s all the time grounded in the very best curiosity of the child.”

This is not about what the mother and father did. This is about what the director of child protection did. And as a consequence, they’re accountable to the courts and they’re additionally accountable to the general public and to the elected politicians.— Prof. Rollie Thompson

Thompson challenges the province’s statement that it cannot comment publicly on the case because of privacy issues.

“The director of child protection is a public official, appearing in a public capability, and sooner or later they can not conceal behind privateness and confidentiality arguments. 

“This isn’t about what the parents did. This is about what the director of child protection did. And as a consequence, they’re accountable to the courts and they are also accountable to the public and to the elected politicians. 

“So I’m drained of listening to them conceal behind that argument,” said Thompson.   

Father didn’t know of child’s existence

The case that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled upon is simply referred to as B.J.T v J.D. 

Those involved cannot be named in media coverage to protect the identity of the child, who for a time was in the care of the province.

The unanimous ruling from Canada’s top court was issued in December 2021, but the written reasons for the decision came out only this month.

The child’s grandmother, who had been present in his life since she moved from Alberta to Prince Edward Island shortly after his birth in 2013, was caring for him because his mother’s mental health condition had worsened.

The boy’s biological father had been briefly married to the mother but didn’t know she was pregnant with his child when she relocated to P.E.I. after their separation. 

After McCourt’s office contacted him in February 2019 to serve legal papers — an action that let him know for the first time that he was a father — he wanted the boy to live with him in Alberta. The maternal grandmother argued that she had formed a bond with the boy and should continue to care for him on the Island, where other members of his mother’s family lived. 

And indeed, a court order recognizing the grandmother’s legal status as a “dad or mum” became effective on July 2, 2019, despite the opposition of the former director of child protection. Meanwhile, the father was still fighting for custody. 

Initial ruling in case overturned

P.E.I. Supreme Court Justice Nancy L. Key, who heard all the facts and arguments in the case, ruled in 2020 that the child should live with his grandmother. 

“The listening to decide discovered that the grandmother would promote the child’s relationship with the daddy and his household, however the father wouldn’t make sure the child would have a significant relationship together with his household in Prince Edward Island except ordered by the court docket,” Supreme Court of Canada Justice Sheilah Martin wrote on behalf of the full court in the lengthy ruling. 

But a 2-1 ruling from the province’s appeal court overturned that 2020 decision and sided with the father. Chief Justice David H. Jenkins was the dissenting voice. 

The case ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada, which sided with Key’s original decision and ruled the child should live with the grandmother on the Island.

By then, the boy had been living with his father in Alberta for more than two years — because McCourt had authorized a three-week visit that turned into an indefinite stay. 

Apprehended on summer camp trip

The Supreme Court of Canada justices were highly critical of that action, among others. 

The ruling says the boy “left his grandmother’s residence for camp like regular, however he was apprehended by the director who has by no means allowed him to return. The director as an alternative selected to put [the child] with foster mother and father, who had been strangers to him.” 

Four weeks later, McCourt sent the boy to Alberta to stay with his father. “The journey, which started on August 8, 2019, was to final three weeks, however [the child] has by no means returned to P.E.I.”

That is still the case. Despite the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in December, the boy has still not been returned to the grandmother in P.E.I.

The courts also raised concern about the director “rapidly” agreeing with Dr. Patricia A. Petrie, a psychologist hired by the father, that the child should live with the father. 

[The psychologist] moved from being goal and nonpartisan to being an advocate for [the father].— P.E.I. Judge Nancy Key, as quoted in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling

“When the psychologist stepped exterior of commenting on the daddy’s skill to dad or mum and opined about the place [the child] ought to finally dwell, ‘she moved from being goal and nonpartisan to being an advocate for [the father],’” the ruling said, quoting Key’s findings. 

It said the psychologist’s involvement with the father and his family “could have clouded her view that every other parenting association for [the child] would have been equally as useful.”

The ruling pointed out that Petrie had never met the boy’s mother or grandmother, and the little knowledge she had of his family on the Island came from staff working under the former director of child protection.

Tried to ‘tip the scales’?

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling also questioned the impartiality of the former director of child protection.

“The listening to decide discovered that the director made a sequence of choices in an try to ‘tip the scales’ in the daddy’s favour,” Justice Martin wrote. 

She noted that Key had found “the director eliminated [the child] from his grandmother’s care and positioned him in foster care ‘for flimsy causes’. She additionally noticed that the director supported the daddy’s parenting plan earlier than having ever met him and even earlier than father and son had even been launched to one another.” 

This was despite “the numerous progress” the boy had made while under his grandmother’s day-to-day care for more than a year.

“The ‘unspoken purpose’ of the director was to help the daddy in turning into [the child’s] on a regular basis dad or mum,” the ruling said. 

Key did not shy away from speculating on a possible reason, writing that if the boy moved to Alberta, “the director would conceivably by no means should take care of [his mother] once more.”

Every effort is made to stick to timelines throughout the Child Protection Act. Unfortunately, there are points of timelines that the division can’t management as soon as a case is earlier than the court docket.— P.E.I. Child and Family Services branch

The hearing judge also found the director’s conduct “successfully tied the court docket’s palms, stopping it from making a complete custodial order with respect to [the child’s] future.” 

Finally, Key’s written ruling says the director “over-held” the child “and breached the timeline prescribed underneath s.41 of the Child Protection Act.”

In a statement to CBC News, P.E.I.’s Child and Family Services branch said: “Every effort is made to stick to timelines throughout the Child Protection Act. Unfortunately, there are points of timelines that the division can’t management as soon as a case is earlier than the court docket.”

Contempt of court motion dismissed

Kelly Peck took over as P.E.I.’s director of child protection in January 2021. 

The department would not say whether any disciplinary action was taken against McCourt before her retirement from the position, telling CBC News, “Any and all different human useful resource issues are inner issues which aren’t mentioned with the general public or media.” 

The statement did add: “There was a contempt movement made by one of the events concerned in opposition to the director, which was dismissed by former P.E.I. Chief Justice [Jacqueline] Matheson in discovering that the director was not in contempt of court docket.”

Thompson said he is, unfortunately, not surprised by the actions of child protection services in this case. But “all of us needs to be,” he said. 

“There’s simply so many steps that had been taken by the director that had been open to query, and the courts questioned them,” said Thompson. “In this case, the child was in their care, and with out going again to court docket, they merely despatched the child out to Alberta to the pure father.

“That’s something that was a significant step and one would have thought you would want to check that with the courts before you did it.”

I’ve tried to present every kind of information to all of you latest news today 2022 by means of this web site and you will like all this information very a lot as a result of all of the information we all the time give in this information is all the time there. It is on trending matter and regardless of the newest information was

it was all the time our effort to succeed in you that you simply hold getting the newest information and also you all the time hold getting the data of information by means of us for free and likewise let you know folks. Give that no matter info associated to different sorts of information will probably be

made accessible to all of you so that you’re all the time linked with the information, keep forward in the matter and hold getting today news all sorts of information for free until at the moment to be able to get the information by getting it. Always take two steps ahead