William Kenneth Hedges

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.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of an Indigenous child, J.M. Tikinagan Child and Family Services (TCFS) sought to place the child with J.L., with access to the mother, R.M. Former caregivers S.C. and J.V. brought a cross-motion for the child's placement with them.

The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families (Federal Act), emphasizing the best interests of the child and the priority of placement for Indigenous children.

The court found TCFS discharged its onus, citing concerns about S.C. and J.V.'s care, their interference with access, and their lack of support for reunification and cultural continuity.

The court dismissed S.C. and J.V.'s motion and ordered the child's temporary care and custody with J.L., with supervised access to the mother, supporting reunification efforts.