Child protection social worker's warrantless entry into home unlawful: Ontario Court of Appeal

Child protection social worker's warrantless entry into home unlawful: Ontario Court of Appeal..

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that a child protection social worker’s warrantless entry into a home was unlawful because there was no proof of a subjective belief that there would be a substantial risk to the child. In Land v. Dryden Police Services Board, 2023 ONCA 207, The Dryden police officers responded to information that Stephanie Henry appeared to be under the influence of alcohol when she picked up her seven-year-old daughter from school. When the police officers went to Henry's home to check on the child, Henry and her partner, Jonathan Land, refused to allow the officers to enter. The officers then contacted the local children's aid society, Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services. Society worker Danielle Gardner arrived at the scene. She requested the police officers to enter the home with her because she "had concerns for her safety and the safety of the child." However, when the officers attempted to accompany Gardner, Land tried to close the door, so one of the officers put his foot in the door and forced it open. Land and Henry filed a suit for damages, claiming that Gardner and the police officers' entry into their home was unlawful. The motion judge concluded no genuine issue required a trial and dismissed the action against all respondents. Land and Henry elevated the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ultimately ruled in their favour. The motion judge found that Land invited Gardner into the home and that Gardner was entitled to enter the home under s. 40 of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) without a warrant, and she was also entitled under that section to request that the police assist her. Land and Henry disputed these findings on appeal. Authority to enter without a warrant The appeal court noted that the CFSA authorizes a child protection worker to enter a place without a warrant, use force if needed, search for and take a child, and request help from the police if necessary. However, the court emphasized two conditions that must first be satisfied—the child protection worker must have believed on "reasonable and probable grounds that a child is in need of protection and that there would be a substantial risk to the child's health or safety during the time necessary to obtain a warrant." The motion judge found that Gardner had a subjective belief that the child "may have been" in need of protection on the day of the incident. However, the appeal court said that Gardner gave no specific evidence addressing whether she believed that the child met the statutory criterion of being a child in need of protection when she entered the residence. Her only evidence for that statutory criterion was that no adult caregiver was present in the home after the police arrested the appellants. Consequently, the appeal court found that the trial judge's finding on this criterion was not based on a proper evidentiary foundation. Privacy Commissioner expands transparency of decisions under Personal Health and Information Act. No proof of subjective belief of substantial risk The appeal court stressed that to act without a warrant, a child protection worker must believe on reasonable and probable grounds that a child "is in need of protection." The motion judge described Gardner's state of mind as believing that the child "may be in need of protection." The appeal court noted that the motion judge made no finding concerning the requirement that the child protection worker must believe on reasonable and probable grounds that there would be a substantial risk to the child's health or safety during the time necessary to obtain a warrant. In addition, Gardner did not give any evidence that she subjectively believed there would be a substantial risk to the child's health or safety during the time necessary to obtain a warrant. Accordingly, the court concluded that the motion judge's finding that Gardner's entry was lawful under the CFSA could not stand. The court emphasized that the extraordinary powers under the CFSA are exceptional and must be strictly followed and enforced. The court set aside the summary judgment dismissing the claims for negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, trespass, and invasion of privacy and the claims under s. 7 and 9 of the Charter, which must proceed to trial.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A SIMILAR CASE IN 2016...

Due to the Canadian News Ban - Google News Headline For Link... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOM WINS CASE BUT CHILDREN'S AID SUES FAMILY YEARS LATER

https://youtu.be/p8qW5M70rxE

FCSLLG in "How to dodge trumped up child apprehension"

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/504782689731500/

"Standard Procedures"

https://fb.watch/n1OjSdPLuE/

"LETS START AT THE BEGINNING"

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/502236246652811/

BEHIND CLOSED DOOR. DUE PROCESS DENIED, PART ONE. …

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/499149713628131/

Behind Closed Doors Part Two: FULL interview.

MEET SUN WAI, ANOTHER UNREGISTERED ONTARIO CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKER…

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/570836186459483/

Affidavit of a Little Fish Paperback – March 18 2021 by Kelley Denham (Author)

“Crash, bang." I spring out of bed. Two of them are in my bedroom. They escort me to my kitchen where I see my husband, restrained. They sit us both in chairs. It is two-thirty in the morning. I notice some broken wood on my kitchen floor. “Did you kick down my door?” I ask. “Yes,” one replies. I can hear the other two in my bedroom. They are going through our stuff. We are not allowed to know what’s going on in there. One of them goes upstairs. My kids are sleeping up there. I ask to go up with him. They say no. https://www.amazon.ca/Affidavit-Little-Fish-Kelley-Denham/dp/B08Z9VZXD1

What is Section 183.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada?

183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. Documenting the facts is not a crime... Broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in. 183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.] The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other people's conversations that they are not involved in. Other legislation in Canada protects various privacy rights, but does not prevent Canadians from recording their own conversations with others. http://www.legaltree.ca/node/908 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-183.1.html#:~:text=183.1%20Where%20a%20private%20communication,any%20provision%20of%20this%20Part. --------------------------------------------------------------

Ontario proposing fines of $250K for anyone caught breaking child-protection laws.

The Ontario government is proposing sweeping new fines and “tougher consequences” to crack down on individuals who violate provincial standards when caring for vulnerable children living in group and foster homes. The proposed regulatory changes would increase the power of inspectors in the child-welfare system, allowing them to issue fines without the attorney general’s approval and issue compliance orders for service providers who fail to adequately care for kids who often come into the system after experiencing trauma or have complex mental health needs. Announced last week by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, the planned amendments would seek to create a list of “prohibited practices” in licensed residential settings, which would become offences under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA). The infractions would include: depriving a child of basic needs; locking up a young person’s personal possessions as a punishment; directing racist language at youth; and inflicting abuse or harm, including spitting. The province is considering increasing fines for individuals convicted of breaking child-welfare laws from $1,000 per day of non-compliance to a maximum court-imposed fine of $250,000. Experts in the child-welfare field said the proposed regulations could help to strengthen the licensing process for group and foster home providers. But they also add that the possible changes fail to provide support and resources to help keep kids with their families in the first place, and out of the child-welfare system altogether. There are also few details on how some of the proposed changes will be enforced. “It’s late. It shouldn’t have taken a number of tragedies and unfortunate circumstances within group home spaces to come to this place of regulation,” said Nicole Bonnie, the chief executive officer for the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, which represents 49 organizations across the province. The proposed legislative changes come just over a year after Global News and APTN began publishing their “Profiting Off Kids” series that revealed allegations of neglect in Ontario’s child-welfare system, which oversaw more than 11,500 kids — 17 years old or younger — in 2021-22. Interviews with hundreds of former and current group home workers, youth and other child-welfare experts revealed that kids in the system are sometimes left in crumbling homes with little food or clothing budgets and underqualified staff. The investigation also found instances of kids who say they were overmedicated and subjected to unnecessary and painful physical restraints – where staff can pin a child to the ground face down. Global News also obtained dozens of inspection reports from group homes across the province which revealed a child sleeping on a soiled mattress, a lack of access to dental care, kids without proper clothes and several instances of youth not receiving timely medical care.

Google News Headline For Link...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Signs Ontario girl needed help before she died were ignored by child protection workers: report.

A new report obtained exclusively by CityNews on the death of four-year-old Keira Kagan examines how the system intended to protect her ultimately ignored the risks she faced. Earlier this week, CityNews revealed that a report for the coroner concluded Keira was likely killed by her father, Robin Brown, in a murder-suicide three years ago. It also found her death was “predictable and preventable” based on the 22 risk factors her father displayed. Ontario’s chief coroner has since announced an inquest into Keira’s death. A second report, written by an expert reviewer as a part of the work of the Child and Youth Death Review and Analysis unit for the coroner, takes particular aim at Jewish Family and Child Services, the children’s aid agency overseeing the case. “Child protection workers […] did have evidence of emotional harm, and little was done by way of supporting the child directly,” wrote expert reviewer Kim Snow, a specialist in child protection and children’s mental health at Toronto Metropolitan University. “All the concerns I had for Keira’s emotional and physical well-being and I was completely ignored,” added Jennifer Kagan, Kiera’s mother. Keira was known as a sensitive and precocious child; she was a big sister and a schoolmate. However, she was also in therapy. Snow noted that Keira required treatment for distress, and there was evidence of coercive control. During the custody dispute that lasted most of Keira’s life, Jennifer Kagan warned the courts and children’s aid workers multiple times that Keira was in harm’s way when she was with her father. Google News Headline For Link... --------------------------------------------------------------

Ombudsman rebukes Toronto children’s aid in first child protection investigation.

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto has accepted all 18 recommendations of the Ontario Ombudsman following its first child-welfare investigation since assuming oversight of the province’s child protection agencies. In its report, released Dec. 19, the Ombudsman examined the case of one young boy, referred to by the pseudonym, Brandon, and found that the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto fell short of child protection standards and failed to act in the child’s best interests. “A Voice Unheard: Brandon’s Story” looks at the time from Dec. 30, 2015, to Oct. 26, 2018, when Brandon was between the ages of seven and 10. At the end of that period, after finding Brandon on a “urine-soiled futon inside a family member’s filthy and bug-infested apartment” and learning that the CAS did not plan to apprehend him, police brought him to a foster home, where he has remained. “Brandon, in shocking fashion, failed to receive the services and the attention that he deserved, once he was receiving services from the Toronto CAS,” says Ombudsman Paul Dubé. “If I had to point to one cause, it was because they failed to adhere to those provincial protection standards that are designed to keep children and youth safe when they're in risky situations. “What we found was, during the course of many years, instead of a sense of urgency, the Children's Aid Society displayed a sense of complacency.” According to the report, one doctor credited the police’s intervention with saving Brandon’s life. The CAS had been involved with Brandon throughout his life. By mid-October in 2018, he had been late to school 34 times and missed 9.5 days since the beginning of the school year. He was under the care of his great-uncle, who had missed a scheduled meeting with Brandon’s CAS worker and the school principal. The CAS decided to visit the home, where they found Brandon in a “catatonic state.” The apartment was infested with bedbugs and cockroaches, there were feces, cat litter, and “urine-soaked pull-up diapers” all over the floor.

Privacy Commissioner expands transparency of decisions under Personal Health and Information Act.

Brandon suffered from a chronic urinary problem and mental health issues, and the report said Brandon’s family “had not followed through on getting him the necessary care.”

The CAS worker on the scene believed Brandon was at immediate risk of harm, called to request permission to apprehend him, but was rebuffed because her supervisor said that Brandon’s family had been working cooperatively with the agency, he was under court-ordered supervision, and the supervisor was worried that the apprehension would be premature if a court had not weighed in. Once it was clear that CAS was not taking him, the police formally apprehended him.

Brandon was then examined at a hospital and the doctors found that he was malnourished, 15 pounds underweight, nearly anemic, had an enlarged kidney, which was infected, and had low hemoglobin and a low red blood cell count. But the CAS wanted Brandon returned to his family, and the police contacted the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, which launched an investigation into CAS’s handling of the case. In May 2019, the Child Advocate’s investigative authority was transferred to the Ombudsman, which continued the investigation. The Ombudsman found that CAS had not complied with Ontario Child Protection Standards “on many occasions.” It “disregarded the regulatory requirements relating to the timing of safety assessments,” did not always carefully consider reports from professionals worried about Brandon’s welfare, and delayed investigations longer than standards permit. The Ombudsman also found that the CAS delayed meeting with Brandon’s family; “routinely failed” to meet Brandon privately; and the agency did not “ensure that timely and meaningful service plans were prepared, reviewed and revised.” CAS supervisors deviated from provincial standards “as a matter of convenience” and delayed supervisory reviews. While Brandon’s situation deteriorated “to the point of crisis,” the CAS “was distracted by the assurances of Brandon’s family,” said the report, which found, in Brandon’s case, CAS’s services were “contrary to law, unreasonable, and wrong under subsections 21(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Ombudsman Act.” “The good news is that we've had an exemplary response from the Children's Aid Society,” says Dubé. “They've taken this as a learning experience. They're going to incorporate Brandon's story into their training – as one of our recommendations called for.” “I wish it could always be that way… the genuine response, the acknowledgement of the failures and the shortcomings, and a very clearly stated commitment to make things better going forward.” In operation for 45 years, originally the Ontario Ombudsman’s mandate included provincial ministries, agencies, tribunals, and departments. In 2015, it was expanded to included municipalities, universities, and school boards, bringing the number of public sector bodies under its watch to around 1,000. Then in 2019, the office was given the investigative function of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. Google News Headline For Link... -----------------------------------------------------------------