2 total
The court prioritized federal Indigenous child welfare legislation to place an apprehended child with her sister over a non-Indigenous former caregiver.
The Anishinaabe Abinooji Family Services (AAFS) brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 12-year-old Indigenous child, M.P., who was apprehended after threatening self-harm if forced to return to the care of Traci Lockman, a non-Indigenous former caregiver.
The child's biological father, N.J., and the G.N. First Nation (GNFN) supported the AAFS's position to place M.P. with her elder sister, S.P., in the First Nation community.
Ms. Lockman sought the child's return to her care.
The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the paramount federal An Act Respecting the First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children Youth and Families (Federal Act).
The court found that AAFS discharged its onus, establishing reasonable and probable grounds of risk of harm if the child returned to Ms. Lockman.
Emphasizing the Federal Act's priority of placement scheme and the child's best interests, including cultural continuity and connection to the Indigenous community, the court determined that S.P., as an adult family member, had priority over Ms. Lockman, who was not considered family by the First Nation or the father.
The court dismissed Ms. Lockman's request and ordered M.P. to remain in the temporary care and custody of S.P. under AAFS and GNFN supervision, with structured access for Ms. Lockman.
The court ordered the return of a wrongfully removed child to Norway under the Hague Convention, rejecting exceptions for grave risk of harm and the child's objection.
The applicant father sought the return of his six-year-old daughter to Norway pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother removed the child from Norway to Canada in February 2017 without his consent.
The respondent mother argued that the Convention did not apply because the child's habitual residence was Canada, not Norway, and that the father had no custodial rights.
Alternatively, she argued that exceptions to the Convention applied based on grave risk of harm and the child's objection to return.
The court found that the child's habitual residence was Norway, that the father had custodial rights under Norwegian law, and that the removal was wrongful.
The court rejected both exceptions, finding that the mother's evidence of grave risk of harm was insufficient and that the child's objections were not based on substantial reasons but rather on parental influence and preference for her current life.
The court ordered the child's return to Norway.
