Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Ledford
Jabrwock, please read the article linked in the first post in this thread. It stated that the Supreme Court upheld the parents rights.
Copied and pasted from the article: "And despite the fact the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed their right to refuse treatment on religious grounds, officials out west acted before the family could launch a court challenge."
|
I've come to the conclusion that CityNews has bad writers.
What they are talking about is a 1995 ruling by the Supreme Court which allows parents to attend a hearing when the state is requesting custody of the children for the purposes of medical treatment. The article is misquoting that ruling to give the impression that the Supreme Court allows parents to refuse treatment. The SC did no such thing. Instead they just allowed parents to argue their case before the court responsible for issuing the seizure order. It's unclear why the provincial judge did not have a hearing, and that's why the parent's appealed to the BC provincial Supreme Court.
So the court can still override parent's wishes, but in this case, there was an error in procedure that will likely allow the parents to request compensation. Had the court allowed a hearing but still seized the children for treatment, the Supreme Court would likely have upheld the provincial judge's ruling...