Judge orders better access for mother after seizure of her baby

A judge has ordered that a Vancouver Island mother who was shocked when her baby girl was taken from her just three days after being born be given better access to the infant.

In a ruling released Tuesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray ordered that the mom, who cannot be identified due to a publication ban, be given more time with the child to facilitate breastfeeding and bonding.

And the judge also ordered that the provincial director of child, family and community services consider and respond quickly to the concerns and suggestions from the mother and her First Nations support workers as to measures that would be less intrusive than the apprehension of the little girl.

The Port Alberni mom, a member of the Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation, gave birth to the baby Jan. 13. Just three days later the child was taken from her and placed with the mother’s paternal grandmother in Courtenay. Court heard that she doesn’t get along with the grandmother and has been living out of a hotel in Courtenay, far from her support network in Port Alberni, with limited access to the child during the week and no access on the weekends.

“With the limited access and the weekend breaks, (the mom) is finding it hard to maintain breastfeeding,” noted the judge. “She worries that she will not be able to continue unless she is given more time with (the girl) every day.”

The judge ordered that the mom get at least six hours a day of access to the child, including weekends.

Normally the director is required to attend a court hearing to justify a child’s removal within seven days after a child is taken. A hearing was initially scheduled for Jan. 22 in Provincial Court, but had to be adjourned for two days when the director’s lawyer was unavailable. Then, on Jan. 24, there was insufficient court time, resulting in the case being adjourned again until March 23, putting the mom in a “hopeless” situation, according to the judge.

“By my count that is 66 days after the infant was removed,” said the judge. “Finding themselves no other avenue of relief, they apply to this court.”

The judge noted that under the law the director must promptly notify the parents in writing, if practicable, as to why their child is being removed from their care.

“I highlight the words ‘must promptly,’ ” said the judge. “The director failed to do so. No reason was provided to this court as to why it was impracticable for the director to provide written reasons.”

There are two grounds under which a child can be apprehended — for immediate safety concerns or if there are no less-intrusive means available to authorities. In the Port Alberni mother’s case, it was deemed that there were no less-disruptive ways of handling the case — a position that is being challenged by the mom and her lawyer.

“Our position is that there are many less-intrusive means, whether it’s having the mom live with support or live with supervision,” said Maegen Giltrow, a lawyer for the mom and the First Nations petitioners. “Even assuming the child needs protection, there are many ways of keeping mom and baby together, so that bonding and breastfeeding are not harmed.”

Giltrow emphasized that there were no issues with substance abuse or any other safety issues involving the mom: “It’s just whether this mom needs support in transitioning into her role as a mom.”