Is the "[NEWS}" a baby bottle?
It's him childishly trying to evade the [NEWS] tag filter script.
Now, it seems like there are a lot of misconceptions about this statute floating around... Let me try to make clear what this is about and address all the criticisms I've found in the thread.
This is the Ontario
Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14 that we're talking about. This is a piece of legislation that is repealing & replacing another piece of Ontario Provincial legislation, the
Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11. (To be repealed at a date that has yet to be announced)
Now, the main relevant part of the new legislation is S. 74 (3), which contains this text:
Best interests of child
(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and
(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,
(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,
(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,
(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, love, loveual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,
(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,
(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,
(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community,
(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,
(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,
(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,
(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and
(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
Let's compare it to the predecessors text, S. 37 (3) which has this text:
Best interests of child
(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:
1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.
3. The child’s cultural background.
4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.
5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
6. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.
7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
8. The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.
9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.
10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.
12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
13. Any other relevant circumstance. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 37 (3); 2006, c. 5, s. 6 (3); 2016, c. 23, s. 38 (18).
They're both about determining what is and is not in the best interest of a particular child.
Now, I've gone through and checked, and
it appears that nothing's been removed, there have only been additions. There's no criticism to be had about it removing anything important.I've gone ahead and compiled an exhaustive list here of which part of the old act is covered by the new act:
1. (i)
2. (ii)
3. (iv)
4. (iii) ("Creed" includes religion as per S. 2 (1) of the new statute)
5. (v)
6. (vi)
7. (vii)
8. (viii)
9. (a)
10. (ix)
11. (x)
12. (xi)
And 13. is referencing later amendments to the bill, I think. Since it's being replaced entirely, this part isn't included.
Only a few things in this section have been changed. For the most part, it's word-for-word identical, minus some shuffling around.
Notable changes include:
- "The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained." has been changed to "consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained" (Which everyone can agree is a good thing, and will be important later)
- Native status has been included in the list of things to consider (Here in Canada that's a much bigger deal than it is in the US)
- In addition to religious faith (point 4) from the old legislation, the child’s "race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, love, loveual orientation, gender identity and gender expression" has been added to the list of
possible circumstances that a person must consider when determining what is and is not in the best interest of a child.
Now, the exact language before this is "consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including[...]"
Criticisms I've seen have included:
- A child shouldn't be taken seriously if they identify as a desk chairWell under this bill, that wouldn't be considered relevant. Under section (a) of the text it says "consider the child’s views and wishes,
given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity"
If they identify as a desk chair or something ridiculous like that, that would be ruled out as relevant due to age/maturity. It also doesn't fit any definition of a gender identity in the first place. In fact, this may have actually been
worse in the previous bill as it did not say that the childs age/maturity was to be taken into account.
This also applies to criticisms such as "X child is not old/mature enough to make this decision." If it is determined that they are not old/mature enough to make that decision (And they're not suffering any serious mental harm from it via
(a)(i)), then their
view and wish of being a different gender is not something to be taken into account. Who decides if they are old/mature enough? That would be the court.
The relevant section regarding removal of a child is S. 101 (1) and (2), which has the following text:
Order where child in need of protection
101 (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests:
Supervision order
1. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.
[...]
(2) In determining which order to make under subsection (1) or section 102, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.
So if the court determines that the child is
in need of protection, and if it's in the
best interests (There's those 2 familiar words, in reference to
S. 74 (3)) to be removed from custody of their care (Due to failure to assist the child), then they will be removed.
So what determines if a child is in need of protection?
Well, here's the full legal text if you want to read it, but it's long.
Child in need of protection
(2) A child is in need of protection where,
(a) the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;
(c) the child has been loveually abused or loveually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of loveual abuse or loveual exploitation and fails to protect the child;
(d) there is a risk that the child is likely to be loveually abused or loveually exploited as described in clause (c);
(e) the child requires treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide the treatment or access to the treatment, or, where the child is incapable of consenting to the treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and the parent is a substitute decision-maker for the child, the parent refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to the treatment on the child’s behalf;
(f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,
(i) anxiety,
(ii) depression,
(iii) withdrawal,
(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
(v) delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;
(g) the child has suffered emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide services or treatment or access to services or treatment, or, where the child is incapable of consenting to treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to the treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm;
(h) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;
(i) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and that the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide services or treatment or access to services or treatment, or, where the child is incapable of consenting to treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to treatment to prevent the harm;
(j) the child suffers from a mental, emotional or developmental condition that, if not remedied, could seriously impair the child’s development and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide treatment or access to treatment, or where the child is incapable of consenting to treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to the treatment to remedy or alleviate the condition;
(k) the child’s parent has died or is unavailable to exercise custodial rights over the child and has not made adequate provision for the child’s care and custody, or the child is in a residential placement and the parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child’s care and custody;
(l) the child is younger than 12 and has killed or seriously injured another person or caused serious damage to another person’s property, services or treatment are necessary to prevent a recurrence and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide services or treatment or access to services or treatment, or, where the child is incapable of consenting to treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to treatment;
(m) the child is younger than 12 and has on more than one occasion injured another person or caused loss or damage to another person’s property, with the encouragement of the person having charge of the child or because of that person’s failure or inability to supervise the child adequately;
(n) the child’s parent is unable to care for the child and the child is brought before the court with the parent’s consent and, where the child is 12 or older, with the child’s consent, for the matter to be dealt with under this Part; or
(o) the child is 16 or 17 and a prescribed circumstance or condition exists. Basically, if they've suffered physical/emotional harm (or are at risk of being physically/emotionally harmed) by their caretaker via negligence to take care of them, they're in need of protection.
This includes medical requirements for treatment, serious emotional distress (via some form of neglect).
So no, if your 11 year old child complains that they want to have a love change your kid will not be taken away. Unless you deny them treatment for some sort of mental illness when they are suffering serious emotional harm as a result of it.
This also means that when considering removing custody, "best interests" of the child would be considered under part
(c)(i) of the new legislation ("the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs"),
not (c)(iii) (The part that includes gender).
That specific part of legislation is just so that
if their gender happens to be a legally important consideration, then it will be considered. Just as a purposely ridiculous, over the top example if another family member who was eligible to custody said something like "I hate x because he identifies as a woman" or "I hate x because they act feminine" then they may no longer be eligible to have custody of x.
- "it stupid, it's a gross overreach of power"The government has no more power with the passing of this bill than it did before. It simply updated the considerations to be taken to determine what is in a child's best interest. The added parts regarding gender won't apply that often, and when they do it won't be in a negative way.
- "This will help feed a childs delusion"
- "My child will be taken away if I don't give in to their delusion of a third gender"It definitely won't. Again, if the child in question isn't old/mature enough to make a decision regarding gender, then it won't be legally considered in the first place. The only circumstances under which a court would intervene would be if they were getting serious emotional harm from something like gender dysphoria,
which you were refusing to give them counseling for.It's not even a matter of "We're forcing you to take your child seriously all the time or else we'll take them away;" they still need to be suffering serious harm to be considered for that kind of thing.
I think that's all that I wanted to cover. Any questions?
