Communication No. 1052/2002 Submitted by: Ms. N.T. (not represented) Alleged victims: The author and her daughter, J.T. State party: Canada Date of adoption of Views: 20 March 2007 her daughter’s well-being. According to a police report, the author stopped a motorist to “give away” her daughter and said that she no longer wanted her daughter and that Canada could take care of her. However this has been consistently denied by the author, according to whom the child was standing on the sidewalk waiting for the author who was talking to the police, and according to whom she never abandoned her daughter. The police took her child to the Police Station and placed her in the care of the Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto which in turn entrusted her to a foster home. Despite the author’s report that her daughter had been sexually assaulted, no investigation was allegedly made and the child was not examined by a doctor. Subject matter: Denial of access of mother to her child Substantive issues: arbitrary interference with family, protection of the family, protection of the child as a minor, fair trial, undue delay Procedural issues: failure to substantiate claim. Articles of the Covenant: 14; para. 1; 17; 23; and 24 Article of the Optional Protocol: 2 Finding: Violation (arts. 2; 14, para. 1; 17; 23; and 24) 1. The author of the communication is N.T., a Canadian citizen of Ukrainian origin, born on 28 July 1960. She also submits the communication on behalf of her daughter, J.T., born in Canada on 20 February 1993, who was removed from her care on 2 August 1997 and later adopted. Although the author did not initially make any specific claims under the Covenant, she later claimed that they were the victims of violations by Canada1 of articles 1, 2, 3, 5 (2), 7, 9 (1, 3 and 5), 10 (1 and 2 a), 13, 14 (1, 2, 3 d and e, and 4), 16, 17, 18 (4), 23, 24, 25 (c) and 26, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). She is not represented by counsel. 2.3 A few days later (5 August), the author was arrested and charged with assault (for what she believed to be an exercise of parental authority) of her daughter.3 In an affidavit of 6 August, the author explained the circumstances of the incident and stated that she believed that she was capable of caring for her daughter, and that she would be pleased to have the Children’s Aid Society attend her home to follow her parenting style. However, on 7 August, the Scarborough Provincial Court placed the child in temporary (three months) care of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CCAS), with supervised access. According to the author, this order did not provide the authority to place her child permanently in a foster home, nor to release her child for adoption. She claims that until the child protection trial and the judgement of 26 June 2000,4 no custody order was issued in favour of the CCAS and it was not established that the child needed protection, as would have been required by national legislation, i.e., the Rules of Civil Practice, the Family Court Rules and the Family and Services Act, for the further apprehension of her daughter from 1997 to 2000. Although the girl initially disclosed that her mother had hit her, she repeatedly expressed the wish to return home and reacted negatively when separated from her mother at the The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author was born in the Ukraine and obtained a qualification in the medical field there. She migrated to Canada in 1989 and became a Canadian citizen in 1994. After the birth of her daughter on 20 February 1993, she raised her child as a single parent, while pursuing University studies in order to obtain a professional Canadian qualification. The child’s biological father did not have any contact with her. 2.2 During the night of 1 to 2 August 1997, the author called the police to report a sexual abuse of her four-year-old daughter. The author also slapped her daughter, to prevent her from visiting the neighbours, resulting in a red mark on her face. 2 According to the author, this only happened once, in a special circumstance where she was concerned for 3 The author confessed the assault and was convicted of assault on 24 April 1998 and received a conditional sentence of 90 days imprisonment. 4 The author refers to the trial which led to the 26 June 2000 judgement of Justice B.E. Payne of the Ontario Court of Justice, on the application of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto for an order for crown wardship without access of the child. 1 The Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Canada on 19 August 1976. 2 According to the police, the girl had bruises on her face and arms. 76