Read on Twitter
Yesterday I was honoured to appear on behalf of the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers to argue an appeal of a judge's decision that gave the Children's Aid Society of Toronto the power to decide when face-to-face parent-child access is unsafe due to COVID. 1/6
We argued the CAS should never be given that kind of authority by the courts for the following reasons:
1. The CAS has no special expertise about COVID risks.
2. The CAS is a litigant in the case so they cannot be trusted to make neutral and objective decisions. 2/6
1. The CAS has no special expertise about COVID risks.
2. The CAS is a litigant in the case so they cannot be trusted to make neutral and objective decisions. 2/6
3. CAS decision-making by their social workers and management is susceptible to conscious and unconscious discriminatory bias against Indigenous, Black and other racialized children and families. CAST has admitted that their practices are impacted by systemic racism. 3/6
4. The suspension of parent-child access causes emotional harm to children and can set a child on a path to losing his or her family.
5. The courts have supported face-to-face parental access in non-CAS cases during COVID. The families in CAS cases deserve no less support. 4/6
5. The courts have supported face-to-face parental access in non-CAS cases during COVID. The families in CAS cases deserve no less support. 4/6
6. Parent-child access is a Charter-protected right of both the children and the parents. Only courts should be making decisions to limit those rights, and it should be on reliable evidence with reasoning that is transparent and reviewable. 5/6
The OACPL was granted leave to intervene in this appeal last month. Shockingly, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto had opposed our intervention. They should have consented to our motion to intervene. It looked like they were afraid of the criticism. It looked bad on them. 6/6
