Rollie Thompson, who lectures on family law and child protection at the Schulich Law School at Dalhousie University, says the department should be involved in some of the case.
“People need to take a closer look at the actions in this case and in other cases [former] director of child protection, “Thompson said in an interview with CBC News. “In this case, the director removed the child from the grandmother and sent the child to the natural father who did not have much – well, nothing to do with the child at first – and they clearly put their thumb on the scales in favor of the natural father and against of the maternal grandmother “. He said this approach “was rejected as a view by the judge and the Supreme Court”.
Wendy McCourt was the director of child protection on Prince Edward Island at the time of the events described in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. He has since retired. Wendy McCourt, in a photo from the provincial government website, was the director of child protection on Prince Edward Island during the events described in the court ruling. (PEI Province) CBC News tried to contact her for comment on her actions as described in the decision, but did not respond to phone calls.

Decisions not taken “lightly”

Child and Family Services officials said they could not comment on specific cases when CBC News requested an interview. However, an e-mail statement said: “The cases and families we work with often have multiple levels of complexity and our staff does not make superficial decisions about children and families. “These decisions are not made in silos, they are made with the contribution of those who are personally and professionally connected with the child / children and the family and in combination with the professional clinical judgment that is always based on the best interests of the child.” This is not what the parents did. This is about what the director of child protection did. And so they are accountable to the courts and they are also accountable to the public and to elected politicians. — Prof. Rollie Thompson Thompson disputes the county’s statement that he could not comment publicly on the matter because of privacy concerns. “The director of child protection is a public official, he acts in a public capacity and at some point he can not hide behind arguments about privacy and confidentiality. “This is not what the parents did. This is what the director of child protection did. And as a result, they are accountable to the courts and they are also accountable to the public and to elected politicians. “So I’m tired of hearing them hide behind this argument,” Thompson said.

The father did not know the existence of the child

The case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada is simply referred to as BJT v. JD Those involved can not be named in the media coverage to protect the identity of the child, who for some time was in the care of the province. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was issued in December 2021, but the written reasons for the decision came out only this month. An office at his grandmother’s house contains some of the boy’s artwork, which was made before he left for a summer camp in August 2019, to be confiscated by child protection workers. (Wayne Thibodeau / CBC) The child’s grandmother, who has been present in his life since he moved from Alberta to Prince Edward Island shortly after his birth in 2013, cared for him because his mother’s mental state had deteriorated. The boy’s biological father had recently married his mother, but did not know she was pregnant with his child when he moved to PEI after their separation. After McCourt’s office contacted him in February 2019 to provide him with legal documents – an action that allowed him to realize for the first time that he was a father – he wanted the boy to live with him in Alberta. The mother’s grandmother claimed that she had formed a bond with the boy and that he should continue to take care of him on the island, where other members of his mother’s family lived. Indeed, a court ruling recognizing the grandmother’s legal status as a “parent” went into effect on July 2, 2019, despite opposition from the former director of child protection. Meanwhile, the father was still fighting for custody.

Initial decision in case of reversal

PEI High Court Judge Nancy L. Key, who heard all the facts and arguments in the case, ruled in 2020 that the child should stay with his grandmother. “The trial judge found that the grandmother would promote the child’s relationship with the father and his family, but the father would not ensure that the child would have a meaningful relationship with his family on Prince Edward Island unless ordered to do so. by the court “. Canadian Justice Sheilah Martin wrote on behalf of the plenary of the court in the lengthy decision. The Court of Appeals of Prince Edward Island decided 2-1 to annul the decision entrusting the care of the boy’s grandmother by his mother, with the highest judge of the province disagreeing. (CBC) But a 2-1 decision by the provincial court of appeals overturned that 2020 decision and sided with his father. Supreme Court Justice David H. Jenkins was the opposite voice. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld Key’s original decision and ruled that the child should live with the grandmother on the island. Until then, the boy had lived with his father in Alberta for more than two years – because McCourt had authorized a three-week visit that turned out to be indefinite.

He was arrested at a summer camp

Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada strongly criticized this action, among others. The verdict states that the boy “left his grandmother’s house for camping normally, but was arrested by the director who never allowed him to return. The director chose to do so [the child] with foster parents, who were strangers to him “. The child at the center of the custody case was living with his father in Alberta, but his grandmother on Prince Edward Island still has his dinosaur-themed bed and is ready to return. (Wayne Thibodeau / CBC) Four weeks later, McCourt sent the boy to Alberta to stay with his father. “The trip, which started on August 8, 2019, was supposed to last three weeks, but [the child] never returned to PEI “ This is still true. Despite the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in December, the boy has not yet been returned to the grandmother in PEI The courts also expressed concern that the principal agreed “quickly” with Dr Patricia A. Petrie, a psychologist hired by the father, that the child should live with the father. [The psychologist] turned from being objective and non-partisan to his supporter [the father].— PEI Judge Nancy Key, as referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada “When the psychologist went out of his way to comment on the father’s ability to be a parent and give an opinion on where [the child] he should finally live, “he jumped from an objective and non-partisan to an advocate [the father]”, Said the decision, citing Key’s findings. She said the psychologist’s involvement with his father and family “may have clouded her view that any other parental arrangement for [the child] it would be just as useful. “ The decision indicated that Petrie had never met the boy’s mother or grandmother and that little he knew about his family on the island came from staff working under the former director of child protection.

Did you try to “tilt the scales”?

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada also challenged the impartiality of the former director of child protection. “The trial judge found that the director made a number of decisions in an attempt to ’tilt the scales’ in favor of the father,” Justice Martin wrote. He noted that Kay found that “the manager has resigned [the child] from the care of his grandmother and put him in foster care “for trivial reasons”. He also noticed that the director supported the father’s parental plan before he met him and even before father and son were introduced to each other “. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in this case immediately after hearing the appeal on 2 December 2021. Written judgments followed on 3 June this year. (Wayne Thibodeau / CBC) This happened despite the “significant progress” that the boy had made while he was under the daily care of his grandmother for more than a year. “The director’s ‘undeclared goal’ was to help the father become [the child’s] daily parent “, the decision stated. Key did not shy away from speculating about a possible reason, writing that if the boy moved to Alberta, “the director would never have to face [his mother] again.” Every effort is made to comply with the timetables within the Law for the Protection of Children. Unfortunately, there are aspects of the timetable that the department cannot control when the case is heard in court.— PEI Child and Family Services Branch The trial judge also found that the director’s conduct “effectively tied the court’s hands, preventing it from issuing a comprehensive detention order in relation to [the child’s] future.”
Finally, Key’s written decision states that the director “withheld ‘the child’ and violated the timetable set out in section 41 of the Child Protection Act”. In a statement to CBC News, the PEI Children and Family Services branch said: “Every effort is being made to meet the timetables within the Child Protection Act. Unfortunately, there are aspects of the timetables that the department cannot to check when a case is before the court. “

The contempt of the court proposal was rejected

Kelly Peck took over as director of PEI Child Protection in January 2021. The department did not specify whether disciplinary measures were taken against …