3/23 Apprehension of Children -Secs 33(1),34(3)(5)

Apprehension of Children:

Section 33 (1) (Child may or may not have been taken into custody by agency first)

“An agency may, at any time before or after an application to determine whether a child is in need of protective services has been commenced, WITHOUT WARRANT OR COURT ORDER take a child into care where the agent has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the child is in need of protective services and the child’s health and safety cannot be protected adequately otherwise than by taking the child into care.”

Section 34 (3)
“Where an agent has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child is in need of protective services AND the health or safety of a child is in immediate jeopardy, the agent may, WITHOUT WARRANT OR COURT ORDER , enter, by force if necessary, any premises and search for a child for the purpose of taking the child into care as permitted by and in accordance with Section 33".

THEN
Section 34(5) states that “A hearing pursuant to this Section [34] shall be held in camera” (in private)

Comments and Recommendations:

• Section 34(3) specifies “immediate jeopardy” - this is understandable. However, Section 33(1) does not make any such qualification for the apprehension of a child without a warrant or a court order. Except for the Emergency Measures Act, there is no other law that allows such power! Yet, even with the Emergency Measures Act, the Prime Minister would be expected to consult with the elected members of the Cabinet before imposing such extreme actions. This is too much power being put in the hands of individual workers and agencies that have a history of not being accountable.

• If action is implemented through Section 34(3), the agency should be accountable and they should be expected to justify their belief of “immediate jeopardy”.

• Section 33(1) should include a need for a warrant or court order. Warrants or court orders can be quickly issued by Justices, Judges and Courts if the need arises. Whenever possible, the Court must be involved and accountable for these apprehensions, and the courts must be vigilantly making the agencies accountable for these apprehensions as well.

• Because there are grave concerns about the whole court system, such serious actions should not be allowed to take place in camera (in private). Is this applicable to Supreme Court (Family Division)?