Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) v. L.T., 2013 ABPC 326

• Judge: Holmes, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 15, 2013
• Citations: 2013 ABPC 326;(2013), 576 A.R. 220 (PC)

CFS v. L.T. (2013), 576 A.R. 220 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. DE.045

In The Matter Of an Application under Section 21.1 of The Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act regarding the child, P.G. born February, 2013

Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director)

(applicant) v. L.T. (respondent)

(130614670W1; 2013 ABPC 326)

Indexed As: Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) v. L.T.

Alberta Provincial Court

Holmes, P.C.J.

November 28, 2013.

Summary:

The Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement applied for an initial custody order respecting a child under s. 21.1 of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act.

The Alberta Provincial Court granted the order.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 815

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child or adult in need of protection - Considerations (incl. best interests of child) - A 16 year old mother gave birth to a baby in February 2013 - The maternal grandmother was appointed guardian of the baby in April 2013 - The mother and grandmother had a history of substance abuse, domestic violence and child neglect - In May 2013, the family agreed to a temporary Safety Plan following a verbal altercation between the mother and grandmother - One of the terms required the grandmother to protect the baby from exposure to further domestic violence - Later that same day, police were called to the home after a prolonged incident of verbal and physical violence in the baby's presence involving the mother, grandmother and great-grandmother - The baby was apprehended by the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement - The Alberta Provincial Court granted the Director's application for an initial custody order - The baby was in need of intervention due to her exposure to domestic violence, being at risk of emotional injury and her guardian being unable or unwilling to prevent it - Although the grandmother had made recent progress concerning her mental health and addiction problems, she had yet to demonstrate a sustained period of progress - It was in the baby's best interests to remain in the Director's custody - See paragraphs 33 to 37.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 815.11

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child in need of protection - Emotional harm - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 815 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 815.13

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child in need of protection - Exposure to violence - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 815 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 817.3

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child in need of protection - Interim order - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "An initial custody order under s. 21.1 of the [Child, Youth and Family Enhancement] Act requires the Director to establish that there are facts, believed to exist at the time of the hearing, which reasonably support a finding that the child is need of intervention. This does not involve determining whether the facts are true, only whether the Director's belief is reasonable. If the evidence meets this standard, the court must then consider if safety concerns will be met if the child is returned to the care of the parent or guardian. Resolution of significant credibility or factual disputes is inconsistent with summary proceedings and, in the context of child protection concerns, best left for determination at a full hearing on the merits." - See paragraphs 14 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) v. C.L. et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 641; 2006 ABPC 279, refd to. [para. 3].

Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) v. K.S. et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 605; 57 R.F.L.(6th) 71; 2008 ABQB 565, refd to. [para. 4].

Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) v. W.H. (2007), 419 A.R. 274; 2007 ABPC 144, folld. [para. 14].

Child and Family Services of Western Manitoba v. K.B. et al. (2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 270; 375 W.A.C. 270; 29 R.F.L.(6th) 41; 2006 MBCA 82, refd to. [para. 18].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Gezaw (Y.A.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 555; 109 W.C.B.(2d) 32; 2013 ABPC 236, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Kimmel (D.V.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 689; 2009 ABPC 289, refd to. [para. 20].

Regional Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) v. R.R. and L.D. (1989), 99 A.R. 67; 23 R.F.L.(3d) 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 48, dist. [para. 21].

T. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) (2000), 261 A.R. 315; 225 W.A.C. 315; 2000 ABCA 182, refd to. [para. 21].

Director of Child and Family Services (Nunavut) v. J.A. et al. (2012), 539 A.R. 50; 561 W.A.C. 50; 2012 NUCA 7, refd to. [para. 28].

A.J., Re, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2786 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

British Columbia (Director of Family and Child Services) v. W.H.K., [2003] B.C.J. No. 1982 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

K.M.T. v. J.D.T., [1999] B.C.J. No. 822 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

K. Cozens, for the applicant;

B. Fraser, for the Child;

K. Schollie, for the Mother;

S. Thurmeier, for the respondent.

This application was heard on July 25 and August 15, 2013, before Holmes, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision at Red Deer, Alberta, on November 28, 2013.