The Supreme Court of Canada handed down a ruling by overturning an appeal previously upheld by an Ontario's highest court. In the decision, the Court clearly defines the role of child welfare officials as protecting the interests of the child, and only the interests of the child. In part, the decision reads:
"If the choice is between the best interests of the child and the family's wishes, there is, by statute, no choice... [A child-welfare official's] statutory mandate is to treat the child's interests as paramount. They must be free to execute this mandate to the fullest extent possible."
The claim was based on a ten year battle between a family and a care facility. In 1995, a 13 year old girl was seized by the Children's Aid Society after she wrote a story at school alleging abuse at the hands of her parents. She attempted suicide in several care facilities (including foster care and a pediatric psychiatric hospital ward) before being declared a ward of the Crown in 1996 with her consent. (However, what her mental condition was at that time is debatable.) No charges have ever been laid against the parents regarding the original allegations. The family claims that because she was treated as an abuse victim instead of a mentally unwell minor, their interests were unjustly ignored in the process.
The well-being of children needs to be the guiding principle for all child welfare services. However, in making their decision as firmly worded as they have, the Supreme Court has ignored an obvious fact: that in some cases, the child is in fact better served by remaining with their parents. The ruling effectively gives child welfare services free reign to do as they see fit, leaving far too much opportunity for abuse of this power, not to mention the ability to hide errors in judgment.
In the case at hand, if the parents were never charged with abuse, it can be argued that the abuse never happened. Also, since the child was subsequently declared a ward of the Crown and remained in its care facilities, it can be argued that she was mentally unwell at the time of the abuse allegations. However, instead of reuniting her with her family, the child welfare services retained custody. Why, if abuse was never proven, would this happen? Was it done to "save face" for the Children's Aid Society?
It is of the utmost importance to protect children from abusers, regardless of who those abusers are. However, by making a sweeping generalization that eliminates any and all rights of parents in the child welfare system, it only serves to prevent the wrongfully accused parents from recovering from the unsubstantiated claim, and makes the child welfare system a virtual death sentence for a family.
you can read more SciFi Dad at Tales From The Dad Side
Comments