3 total
Court ruled on the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements under the hearsay exception.
This is a ruling on the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a child to a child protection worker during a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The child protection society sought to admit the child's statements through the trial affidavit of the child protection worker under the "state of mind" exception to the rule against hearsay.
The court conducted a voir dire to determine which statements met the requirements for admission under this exception.
The judge examined each statement individually to determine whether it reflected the child's contemporaneous mental, emotional, or physical state, and whether it was relevant to the grounds for finding the child in need of protection.
The court granted the status review application, placing the children with their father under a supervision order.
A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children previously found to be in need of protection due to parental neglect.
The Children's Aid Society sought to place the children with their father in Saskatchewan subject to a supervision order, with conditions for maternal access.
The mother opposed the application and sought the return of the children to her care.
The court determined that the children's best interests were served by remaining in the care of their father, and made a six-month supervision order with provisions for maternal access to be agreed upon by the parties.
Hearsay statements of children's residential preferences are admissible under the state of mind exception.
This is an evidentiary ruling in a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act concerning the admissibility of the views and wishes of two children (ages 14 and 11) who are represented by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.
The central issue is whether hearsay statements reflecting the children's residential preferences, expressed to their legal representative and other witnesses, are admissible at trial.
The children are not being called to testify.
The mother opposes admission of this evidence, while the father, the society, and the children's counsel support it.
The court rules that such evidence is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as it reflects the children's mental state regarding their residential preferences, which is a mandatory consideration under the statute.
