Former P.E.I. director of child protection comes in for ‘substantial criticism’ in Supreme Court ruling

Prince Edward Island’s former director of kid safety comes beneath “substantial criticism” in a landmark Supreme Court docket of Canada little one custody ruling involving a boy now residing in southern Alberta, says a regulation professor acquainted with the case. 

Rollie Thompson, who lectures on household regulation and little one safety points on the Schulich Faculty of Regulation at Dalhousie College, says the division wants to interact in some self-reflection over the case. 

“Individuals have to take a tough take a look at the actions on this case, and different circumstances of the [former] director of kid safety,” Thompson mentioned in an interview with CBC Information. 

“On this case, the director eliminated the kid from the maternal grandmother and despatched the kid to the pure father who had not a lot — nicely, no relationship with the kid at first — and so they plainly put their thumb on the scales in favour of the pure father and in opposition to the maternal grandmother.”

He mentioned that strategy “was rejected as a view by the trial decide and by the Supreme Court docket.” 

Wendy McCourt was Prince Edward Island’s director of kid safety on the time of the occasions described within the Supreme Court docket of Canada ruling. 

She has since retired.

CBC Information tried to achieve her for remark about her actions as described within the ruling, however she didn’t return cellphone calls.

Choices not made ‘flippantly’

Officers with Little one and Household Companies mentioned they can’t touch upon particular circumstances, when CBC Information requested an interview.

However an emailed assertion mentioned: “The circumstances and households that we work with typically have a number of ranges of complexity and our workers don’t take any choices involving youngsters and households flippantly. 

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

This is not about what the mother and father did. That is about what the director of kid safety 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 assertion that it can’t remark publicly on the case due to privateness points.

“The director of kid safety is a public official, performing in a public capability, and sooner or later they can’t conceal behind privateness and confidentiality arguments. 

“This is not about what the mother and father did. That is about what the director of kid safety 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. 

“So I am uninterested in listening to them conceal behind that argument,” mentioned Thompson.   

Father did not know of kid’s existence

The case that the Supreme Court docket of Canada dominated upon is just known as B.J.T v J.D. 

These concerned can’t be named in media protection to guard the id of the kid, who for a time was within the care of the province.

The unanimous ruling from Canada’s high court docket was issued in December 2021, however the written reasons for the decision got here out solely this month.

The kid’s grandmother, who had been current in his life since she moved from Alberta to Prince Edward Island shortly after his delivery in 2013, was caring for him as a result of his mom’s psychological well being situation had worsened.

The boy’s organic father had been briefly married to the mom however did not know she was pregnant along with his little one when she relocated to P.E.I. after their separation. 

After McCourt’s workplace contacted him in February 2019 to serve authorized papers — an motion that permit him know for the primary time that he was a father — he wished the boy to reside with him in Alberta. The maternal grandmother argued that she had shaped a bond with the boy and may proceed to look after him on the Island, the place different members of his mom’s household lived. 

And certainly, a court docket order recognizing the grandmother’s authorized standing as a “dad or mum” grew to become efficient on July 2, 2019, regardless of the opposition of the previous director of kid safety. In the meantime, the daddy was nonetheless preventing for custody. 

Preliminary ruling in case overturned

P.E.I. Supreme Court docket Justice Nancy L. Key, who heard all of the details and arguments within the case, ruled in 2020 that the kid ought to reside along with his grandmother. 

“The listening to decide discovered that the grandmother would promote the kid’s relationship with the daddy and his household, however the father wouldn’t make sure the little one would have a significant relationship along with his household in Prince Edward Island until ordered by the court docket,” Supreme Court docket of Canada Justice Sheilah Martin wrote on behalf of the complete court docket within the prolonged ruling. 

However a 2-1 ruling from the province’s enchantment court docket overturned that 2020 choice and sided with the father. Chief Justice David H. Jenkins was the dissenting voice. 

The case ended up within the Supreme Court docket of Canada, which sided with Key’s authentic choice and dominated the kid ought to reside with the grandmother on the Island.

By then, the boy had been residing along with his father in Alberta for greater than two years — as a result of McCourt had licensed a three-week go to that was an indefinite keep. 

Apprehended on summer season camp journey

The Supreme Court docket of Canada justices had been extremely essential of that motion, amongst others. 

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

4 weeks later, McCourt despatched the boy to Alberta to stick 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’s nonetheless the case. Regardless of the Supreme Court docket of Canada ruling in December, the boy has nonetheless not been returned to the grandmother in P.E.I.

The courts additionally raised concern in regards to the director “rapidly” agreeing with Dr. Patricia A. Petrie, a psychologist employed by the daddy, that the kid ought to reside with the daddy. 

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

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

It mentioned the psychologist’s involvement with the daddy and his household “could have clouded her view that some other parenting association for [the child] would have been equally as useful.”

The ruling identified that Petrie had by no means met the boy’s mom or grandmother, and the little information she had of his household on the Island got here from workers working beneath the previous director of kid safety.

Tried to ‘tip the scales’?

The Supreme Court docket of Canada ruling additionally questioned the impartiality of the previous director of kid safety.

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

She famous that Key had discovered “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 regardless of “the numerous progress” the boy had made whereas beneath his grandmother’s day-to-day look after greater than a yr.

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

Key didn’t shrink back from speculating on a potential purpose, writing that if the boy moved to Alberta, “the director would conceivably by no means need to cope with [his mother] once more.”

Each effort is made to stick to timelines throughout the Little one Safety Act. Sadly, there are features of timelines that the division can’t management as soon as a case is earlier than the court docket.— P.E.I. Little one and Household Companies department

The listening to decide additionally discovered the director’s conduct “successfully tied the court docket’s arms, stopping it from making a complete custodial order with respect to [the child’s] future.” 

Lastly, Key’s written ruling says the director “over-held” the kid “and breached the timeline prescribed beneath s.41 of the Little one Safety Act.”

In an announcement to CBC Information, P.E.I.’s Little one and Household Companies department mentioned: “Each effort is made to stick to timelines throughout the Little one Safety Act. Sadly, there are features of timelines that the division can’t management as soon as a case is earlier than the court docket.”

Contempt of court docket movement dismissed

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

The division wouldn’t say whether or not any disciplinary motion was taken in opposition to McCourt earlier than her retirement from the place, telling CBC Information, “Any and all different human useful resource issues are inside issues which aren’t mentioned with the general public or media.” 

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

Thompson mentioned he’s, sadly, not stunned by the actions of kid safety providers on this case. However “all of us must be,” he mentioned. 

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

“That is one thing that was a big step and one would have thought you’d need to verify that with the courts earlier than you probably did it.”