British Columbia (Children and Family) v A.B., 2020 BCPC 278.
Summary
Baby A was removed from her parents’ care when she was three months old after medical evidence showed that she had sustained twelve fractures while in her parents’ primary care. The Director argued that Baby A needed protection because she had been physically harmed by her parents and remained at risk of future harm. The parents opposed the application and…
Read Full Text ▼Baby A was removed from her parents’ care when she was three months old after medical evidence showed that she had sustained twelve fractures while in her parents’ primary care. The Director argued that Baby A needed protection because she had been physically harmed by her parents and remained at risk of future harm. The parents opposed the application and sought Baby A’s return, either immediately or under a supervision order. The Court also had to consider that Baby A is an Indigenous child, meaning both the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families (Federal Act) applied. The Court accepted the evidence of the medical and social worker witnesses and found that Baby A had been harmed by her parents. The Court found that both parents had failed to provide timely and honest information to health professionals, which delayed proper medical treatment. The Court concluded that Baby A was in need of protection, that returning her to either parent under supervision would not adequately protect her, and that a temporary custody order would only delay the inevitable. The Court granted the Director’s request for a continuing custody order, while adjourning entry of the order briefly so the Nation could submit a cultural plan.
Region
British Columbia
Treaty Region(s)
N/A
Date
2020-06-30
Nation Name
Omitted for publication.
Jurisdiction
- BC: Provincial Court of British Columbia (BCPC)
Case Year
2020
File Type: application/pdf
File Size: 258 KB
Case Brief
Case Link
(www.canlii.org)
Issues
1. Is Baby A in need of protection?
- If she is not in need of protection, she must be returned to her parents as soon as possible as per s.40(2)(a) of CFCSA.
- If she is in need of protection the following issues must be decided.
2. Which of the four orders available under subsection 41(1)(a) – (d) should be made, as being in her best interest?
3. Is the nature and extent of the harm that Baby A has suffered or the likelihood that she will suffer harm such that there is little prospect that it would be in her best interest to be returned to the parent?
Relevant Excerpts
Is Baby A in need of protection?
If she is not in need of protection, she must be returned to her parents as soon as possible as per s.40(2)(a) of CFCSA.
If she is in need of protection the following issues must be decided.
Which of the four orders available under subsection 41(1)(a) – (d) should be made, as being in her best interest?
Is the nature and extent of the harm that Baby A has suffered or the likelihood that she will suffer harm such that there is little prospect that it would be in her best interest to be returned to the parent?
Case History
First Nation A. v. A.B. , 2020 BCPC 279.
Bill C92 Citations
Legislative Citations
Child, Family and Community Service Act, RSBC 1996, c 46.
Sections 2; 3; 4; 40; 41; 68
Case Law Considered
R v Khelowan, 2006 SCC 57.
Bradshaw v Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398.
British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v S.H., 2020 BCPC 82.
Director v B. and B., 2011 BCPC 72.
Tags: Application of Act,
Best interests,
Continuing Custody Order,
Interpretation of the Act
