BC (Child, Family and Community Service) v SB and DMB, 2022 BCPC 140.

Was the Director justified in removing the Children from S.B.’s care in February 2022? 

Specifically, at the time the Children were removed: 

Did the Director have reasonable grounds to believe the Children needed protection?

Was there an immediate danger to the Children’s health or safety?

Were there less disruptive measures available? 

If the court concludes the removal was justified, what is the best way to care for the children pending the conclusion of the protection hearing? 

[126] It appears that the most significant difference between the [CFCSA] and the Federal Act as regards to the instant application is the latter’s direction that the best interests of the child be considered at all stages of the process, where as the former only requires the best interests of the child to be considered when a particular section or subsection directs. 

[174] In determining the Children’s placement pending the completion of the protection hearing, the CFCSA does not require the court to undertake a “best interest analysis.” However, ss. 9(1) and 10(1) of the Federal Act does if the child is Indigenous: British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v. H.D.C., 2020 BCPC 214 (CanLII), paras. 113-115.

[184] Given the paramountcy of the Federal Act, the Children’s Indigeneity militates toward returning them to their mother’s care under the Director’s supervision. I realize this means S.B. will continue to depend on social services agencies to fulfil her parental responsibilities. I would hope these support services could be made available to S.B. in a reasonably dignified manner and not predicated on over-surveillance or unnecessary intrusiveness. The evidence before the court, which is scant, does not persuade me that shoring up S.B.’s ability to parent her children to a standard of “good enough” is less desirable than the Director’s only alternative, which is to place them with a “ministry resource.” Hence, I am ordering K.B., M.B., and B.B. be returned to S.B.’s care under the supervision of the Director.

None.

• Section 4: Minimum standards
• Section 8: Purpose
• Section 9: Principles
• Section 10
• Section 16
• Section 17: Attachment and emotional ties

Child, Family and Community Service Act, RSBC 1996, c 46. 
Sections 1(“Remove”); 2; 3; 4; 13; 30(1); 33.3; 35(2); 55; 66; 68(2)(a)

AM v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Community Service), 2008 BCCA 178. 

British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v AR, KG and TJ, (Duncan Registry File 12360) (Unreported Decision). 

British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v HDC, 2020 BCPC 214. 

British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v SH, 2020 BCPC 82.

British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v SS, 2020 BCPC 233. 

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v AB, 2019 BCPC 35. 

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v AS, 1998 CanLII 1071 (BCSC). 

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) v SG, 2019 BCPC 258. 

Brown v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 5637. 

Director v KS, 2020 BCPC 97. 

J(L) v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2000 BCCA 446. 

JMS v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2021 BCSC 2104.

MB v MLK and TDR, 2022 MBQB 106. 

Michif Child and Family Services v CLH, 2020 MBQB 99.  

ML v BT, 2021 ONCA 683. 

Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40. 

Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v AB, 2022 ONCJ 75. 

Stadelmann v Dmytruk, 2010 BCSC 1615. 

S(B) v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service), 1998 CanLII 5958 (BCCA). 

Richardson v Richardson, 1987 CanLII 58 (SCC). 

R(B) v K(K), 2015 BCSC 1658. 

TL v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 BCSC 2203.