APPEAL# I PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated December 11, 2013 which found that the appellant is not eligible for assistance as a Child in the Home of a Relative (CIHR). The ministry found that the appellant currently resides with her parents and is, therefore, no longer eligible for assistance pursuant to Section 6 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR). PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), Section 1 and Section 6 (repealed) Child in the Home of a Relative Program Transition Regulation
P A R T E S u m m a r y o f F a c t s T h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n R e a s o n s d a t e d N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e a p p e l l a n t p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l d o c 1 ) L e t t e r d a t e d M a r c h 4 , 2 0 1 0 f r o m t h e M i n i s t r y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s " c a r e g i v e r " c h a n g e s t o t h e C I H R [ C h i l d i n t h e H o m e o f a w a n t t o a s s u r e y o u t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e n o c h a n a s s i s t a n c e a s l o n g a s y o u r f i l e r e m a i n s o p e n t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a s s i s t a n c e u n d e r t h e e x i s t i n g C S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t ( M H S D ) w i l l c o n t i n u e t o a n d p o l i c y " ; a n d , 2 ) E x c e r p t s f r o m t h e F a m i l y L a w A c t S B C 2 0 1 1 S e rv i c e A c t R S B C 1 9 9 6 , c . 4 6 . T h e m i n i s t r y d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f a n y d o c u m e n t s a n d a d m i t t e d t h e l e t t e r , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t a s p r o v i d i n g f u r t h e r d e t a i l r e l a t i n g t o t h e t r a n s i t i o n a l o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w a s b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y o n r e c o n s c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e p a n e l t o b e p a r t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s I n t h e R e q u e s t f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i g r a n d d a u g h t e r , w h o h a s h a d a d i f f i c u l t c h i l d h o o d . A r i s k a n d n e e d o f p r o t e c t i o n a n d s h e a n d h e r h u s b a n p r o v i d e a s a f e p l a c e f o r t h e i r g r a n d d a u g h t e r a n d s u p t h e m i n i s t r y d i d n o t f u n d t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s a s f o s t e r a p p e l l a n t a s t h e y w e r e a l s o s u p p o r t i n g t h e c h i l d ' s p a c h i l d a t t h e t i m e o u t s i d e o f b e c o m i n g a w a r d o f t h e c C I H R p r o g r a m w h i c h w a s m u c h l e s s f u n d i n g t h a n t h T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w r o t e t h a t t h e p o t e n t i t h e y c o n t i n u a l l y h a d t o w o r k a t e n s u r i n g h e r p r o t e c t i o t o d o s o . A d o p t i o n w a s t h e o n l y c h o i c e t o e n s u r e s a p a r e n t s w h o c o n t i n u e d t o s t r u g g l e w i t h a d d i c t i o n a n d t h e m t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e c a r e f o r t h e i r c h i l d . T h e a c o n s u l t l a w y e r s , a m e d i a t o r , a n d a p r i v a t e s o c i a l w o r a d o p t i o n a n d t o c o v e r t h e l e g a l a s p e c t s o f t h e a d o p t l e g a l p a r e n t s , t h e y n o w h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y a n d t h e a i n t e r e s t s a n d s a f e t y . U p o n r e p o r t i n g t h e a d o p t i o n o f m a d e t o t h e m a n a g e r f o r t h e r e g i o n a b o u t h o w t o h a s t o p p e d i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 a n d , i n N o v e m b e r , t h e y w e I n h e r N o t i c e o f A p p e a l , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e s h e b e l i e v e s t h e m p u r p o s e f u l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n t h a t t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e b e s t i n t e A P P E A L # I e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n c l u d e d t h e R e q u e s t f o r 3 . u m e n t s a s f o l l o w s : o f C h i l d r e n a n d F a m i l y D e v e l o p m e n t ( M C F D ) t o a n d s t a t i n g i n p a r t t h a t t h e M C F D i s m a k i n g R e l a t i v e ] p r o g r a m b u t " a s a c u r r e n t C I H R c l i e n t , I g e t o y o u r s t a t u s . Y o u w i l l c o n t i n u e t o r e c e i v e a n d y o u a n d t h e c h i l d o r y o u t h i n y o u r c a r e m e e t I H R p r o g r a m . T h e M i n i s t r y o f H o u s i n g a n d d e l i v e r t h e p r o g r a m u n d e r e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , c . 2 5 a n d t h e C h i l d , F a m i l y a n d C o m m u n i t y o f t h e d o c u m e n t s . T h e p a n e l r e v i e w e d t h e i o n 2 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t , p e r i o d o f t h e C I H R p r o g r a m , a n d b e i n g i n s u p p o r t i d e r a t i o n . T h e e x c e r p t s f r o m l e g i s l a t i o n w e r e a r g u m e n t . v e fo r t h e a p p e l l a n t w r o t e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s h e r l m o s t 8 y e a r s a g o , t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a t s e r i o u s d , a s t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , s t e p p e d i n t o p o rt f o r t h e i r s o n , t h e c h i l d ' s f a t h e r . A t t h a t t i m e , p a r e n t s f o r t h e c a r e t h e y w e r e p r o v i d i n g t h e r e n t . T h e r e w e r e n o o t h e r s a f e o p t i o n s f o r t h e o u r t . T h e o n l y o p t i o n o f s u p p o r t w a s t h r o u g h t h e a t a v a i l a b l e f o r f o s t e r c a r e . a l r i s k t o t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s s t i l l v e r y h i g h a n d n f r o m t h e r i s k o f a b u s e , w i t h n o l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f e t y f r o m r i s k o f a b u s e f r o m t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h r e l a t i o n a l i s s u e s t h a t m a d e i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r p p e l l a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w r o t e t h a t t h e y h a d t o k e r i n o r d e r t o p l a n a n d p r e p a r e fo r t h e s t e p o f i o n . T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w r o t e t h a t a s b i l i t y t o m a k e d e c i s i o n s b a s e d o n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t t h e c h i l d t o t h e m i n i s t r y i n t h e f a l l , a n i n q u i r y w a s n d l e t h e f i l e . T h e a s s i s t a n c e c h e q u e s w e r e r e i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e f i l e w a s c l o s e d . e w r o t e t h a t s h e d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e m i n i s t r y ' s i n i s t r y d i d n o t c o m p l e t e a w h o l e s o m e , t h e C I H R p r o g r a m . T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w r o t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d , t h e a o o e l l a n t , a n d t h e v t o o k
the step of adoption beca us e i t was t he on ly way to continue to safeguard th ensure her saf et y a n d security. At the hearing, th e appellant's representa tive stated that the circumstances of the appel this progra m are unique as the MCFD does not run it anymore, a family fit s. She has come across cases where gra n guardians or ar e given custod y of the chil d and it has not cau assi s t anc e . T h e a ppellant's representativ e sta ted that the program and it is currently the only benefit avai lable p ointed to the let ter fr o m M C F D, wh ic h st a t es that there will be no change in their sta existing p rogram. S he was surprised tha t the mini stry u reconsideration, given th e information and legisla t i on the situation through the small lense of the defin it ion of a "pare and have said she is no longer eligible. Th e ministry did not do a full review given t circumstances of the child, and s he a sks that th e panel look at th a nd a ll of the legislat ion. T he overarch ing p ri nciple · as sh ow n in S ect i on 37 o f the Family Law Act and Se Se/Vice Act. The ap pel lan t' s r ep r esent ative state d tha t, acc ordin g to the definition prov "pa r en t" of the c h ild sin c e sh ort l y aft er the c h il d ca me husband a nd th e appell ant's f a ther w e re gi ven t r i partite th e c hil d's gu a rdian s as ear ly as 20 07. Since the c hild of t im e, t hey c ou l d n o t be consid e red fos t er parent s. ste p son, so on left t he re sid ence. T he CIHR benef it s are rece ive if they we re consid e red "fo s t er pare nts," l i ke m fin ancial r a mifica tions of the ado pti o n to t he m, w hich s t ated t h at s he curr e n tly ha s fu l l-ti m e emp l oyment but her taken on t he r esponsibility of co n tinuing to care for the a that th ey ma y be eligible for certai n tax exemp tions Th e mini s t r y relie d on th e reco nsid e rat io n decisio n w been in receipt of income assistance as a CIHR since Decem appellant's representative advised the ministry that she had adopted the appellant. t he m inis try explained tha t the poli c y regarding the CIHR program that was previously ap contain the same restrictions that are currently set out in the legislation. g uardians of th e ch i ld, f or example, and continue to be eligibl ministry clarified t h at the current and relevant legislati and considered by the ministry in making its decision included the definition of "parent" in Section 1 of the EA R, and no t th e provisions of the Adoption Act RSBC 1996, c. 5. APPEAL# I eir grandchild and to lant an d with n d it is hard to figure out where their dp arents on the CIHR program become s ed them to b e disqu a lified fo r th e they consider themselves gra nd fath e r e d in t o to sup port them in caring for the child. She tus under the phe ld the original de cision on t h at wa s provided. T h e ministry has looked a t nt" be c a u se the app e llant was adopted he h isto r y a n d e big pictu re, including the pol i cy i n th e l egi sla t i on is t he best inte rests o f t he child, ction 3 of the Chil d, Family an d Communi ty ided , s he h as bee n th e into th e i r h om e s everal yea rs ago. Sh e an d h e r cus tody of the c h ild and th e y were considered 's father wa s also l ivi ng w ith them f or a period However, the child's f a ther , the rep r esent ati ve' s o nl y a s m all p o rtion of wha t th ey would a ny other gr a n d pa ren ts. No one e xplai ne d th e occ urred in Aug ust 20 1 3. T h e r epresenta tiv e husb a nd is una ble t o w ork a nd they h ave ppell a n t " for life". T he r epresentat ive sta ted for chi ld ca r e. hich included evidence t h at th e a ppell a n t ha s ber 2008. O n Sept ember 1 9, 20 13, th e At the hearing, plied did not Relativ e s could become e under the CIHR progra m. T he on referred to in the reconsideration de cision
P A R T F R e a s o n s f o r P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s f o r a s s i s t a n c e a s a C h i l d i n t h e H o m e o f a R e l a t i v e a n d A s s i s t a n c e R e g u l a t i o n ( E A R ) a s t h e a p p e l l a n t c s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e o r a r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . S e c t i o n 6 o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e R e g u l C h i l d i n t h e h o m e o f a r e l a t i v e 6 . ( 1 ) I n t h i s s e c t i o n , " c h i l d " d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a p e r s o n w i t h " r e l a t i v e " i n r e l a t i o n t o a c h i l d , d o e s n o ( 2 ) S u b j e c t t o s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 . 1 ) , a c h i l d i s S c h e d u l e A i f ( a ) a c h i l d r e s i d e s w i t h h i s o r h e r r e l a ( b ) t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t p l a c e d t h e c h i l d ( c ) t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t d o e s n o t r e s i d e ( 2 . 1 ) A c h i l d i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s ( a ) t h e c h i l d c e a s e s t o m e e t t h e c o n d ( b ) t h e r e l a t i v e w i t h w h o m t h e c h i l d r e s e c t i o n 8 o f t h e C h i l d , F a m i l y a ( c ) t h e r e l a t i v e w i t h w h o m t h e c h i l d r e ( i ) t o p r o v i d e a c c u r a t e a n d c o m ( i i ) t o p r o v i d e a l l o f t h e a u t h o r i z o r 3 4 . 1 w i t h i n t h e t i m e , i f a n y ( i i i ) t o a t t e n d i n p e r s o n a t t h e m m i n i s t e r u n d e r s e c t i o n 3 4 . 1 ( i v ) t o s u b m i t t h e f o r m r e q u i r e d t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d b y t h e m ( d ) t h e m i n i s t e r d e t e r m i n e s , b a s e d o n p r o v i d e d o n o r a f t e r D e c e m b e r 1 , a u t h o r i z a t i o n a p p e n d e d t o t h e a p p t h e h o m e t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h e h o m e p l a c e f o r t h e c h i l d , o r ( e ) t h e m i n i s t e r h a s c o n d u c t e d a n a u d i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d u n d e r t h e a u h o m e t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h e h o m e w h e t h e c h i l d . ( 3 ) I f a c h i l d i s e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e r e l a t i v e f o r t h S e c t i o n 1 o f t h e E A R p r o v i d e s a d e f i n i t i o n o f " p a r e n t " p a r e n t " , i n r e l a t i o n t o a d e p e n d e n t c h i l d , i n c l u d e s s e c t i o n s 2 0 [ c a t e g o r i e s o f p e r s o n s w h o m u s t a s s i g n s u p p l e m e n t s ] o f t h i s r e g u l a t i o n a n d s e c t i o n 6 [ p e o p l e r e a u l a t i o n :A P P E A L # I i o n , w h i c h f o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s n o t e l i g i b l e ( C I H R ) p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 6 o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s w i t h h e r p a r e n t s , i s r e a s o n a b l y i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e e n a c t m e n t i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a t i o n ( E A R ) , w h i c h h a s b e e n r e p e a l e d , p r o v i d e d : d i s a b i l i t i e s ; t i n c l u d e t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t . e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e u n d e r s e c t i o n 1 1 o f t i v e , w i t h t h e r e l a t i v e , a n d w i t h t h e r e l a t i v e . t a n c e u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) i f i t i o n s s e t o u t i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) , s i d e s h a s e n t e r e d i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t u n d e r n d C o m m u n i t y S e r v i c e A c t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e c h i l d , s i d e s o r t h e p a r e n t o f t h e c h i l d f a i l s p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e m i n i s t e r , a t i o n s r e q u e s t e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 . 4 , s p e c i f i e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r , i n i s t r y o f f i c e w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o b y t h e ( 2 ) ( c ) , o r b y t h e m i n i s t e r u n d e r s e c t i o n 3 4 . 1 ( 2 ) ( a ) , w i t h i n i n i s t e r , a r e v i e w o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d 2 0 0 7 a n d i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d u n d e r t h e l i c a t i o n , t h a t t h e r e i s a l e v e l o f r i s k t o t h e c h i l d i n w h e r e t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s i s n o t a n a p p r o p r i a t e i t u n d e r s e c t i o n 3 4 . 1 a n d d e t e r m i n e s , b a s e d o n d i t , t h a t t h e r e i s a l e v e l o f r i s k t o t h e c h i l d i n t h e r e t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s i s n o t a n a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e f o r c e u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) , t h e m i n i s t e r m a y p a y t h e e c h i l d . " a s f o l l o w s : t h e f o l l o w i n g o t h e r t h a n f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f m a i n t e n a n c e r i g h t s ] a n d 6 5 [ b u r i a l o r c r e m a t i o n r e c e i v i n g r o o m a n d b o a r dj o f S c h e d u l e A o f t h i s
(a) a guardian of the person of the child , other than (i ) a director under the Child, Fami ly and Commun ( ii) an admini s trator or director under the Adoption Act; (b) a person le gally entitle d to custody of a ch ild, othe or ( i i); (c ) if the ch ild i s a dependent c hild o f a p arenti ng dependent child, a person parenting depe n de n t child. T he Child in the Home of a Re l at ive Program Transition Regulation provides C h ild in home of rel a tive transit ion 1. T h e p r o visions referring t o a chi ld in the h o me of such a c hild or th e relative with whom such a child resides Regulation, B.C. Reg. 263/2002, a n d of the E mployment Di s a b i lit ie s Regula t i o n , B.C. Reg. 265/2002, as th con t in ue to apply in relation to (a ) a chi ld in the h ome o f a re lat i ve who was el igible o f t he Emplo y m ent and Ass i s tan c e Re gul ation ( b ) a chi ld who s e appli cation u nder se c tion 6 of the Emp received on or b e fore March 3 1, 2010 a nd app ( c ) th e fa mil y un it of a relativ e wi t h w hom a chil d M arc h 3 1 , 2010, until the da te t he chi ld ceases to be el igible for i ncom E mployment and As si sta nc e Re g ulati on as i t read Additional au dit powers 2 (1) In this section , "s e ction 34.1" me a ns section 34.1 of the Regulati o n, B . C. Reg. 263/2002, a s it read imm (2) For t he pu rpo s es of th e a p pli c ati on o f s ection regulat i on, on or after the d at e t hi s s ec t ion com (a) the mini ster may al s o c onduc t a re view o f a Comm unity S ervice Act , the F a mily and C hi current and former Adoption Act, pertaining to the pe (i) and (ii), and (b) the writt en authorizations under section 34.1 (2) (b) mu disclose in formation a b out a person referr e purpose o f co nducting a review under par agraph Ministry's position The ministry's pos i tion is that the Child in the Home of a Relative Program Transition Regulation provides tha t the pro v isions of the repealed Section 6 of the EAR continue to apply as long as the child remains elig ible for CIHR. The ministry argued m u s t re-a p ply and, as the CIHR pro gram is no longe application may not be considered. The ministry argued that under the repealed Section 6 of the EAR a child is eligible for CIHR assistance if the child resides with a "relative," which is defined as not including the child's parent. The ministry argued that the applicable legislation is that currently in force and when the appellant's representative legally adopted the appellant she became the appellant's "oarent" oursuant to Section 1 of the EAR, which includes a person leaallv entitled to APPEAL# I ity Service Act, o r r th an an official referred to in p aragrap h (a) (i) who i s the par ent of th e : a relative, or otherwise applying in relation to , of the Employment and Assistance and As sistance for Persons wi th o se regu l ations read on March 31, 2010, to rece ive income a ssi stan ce un d e r s ectio n 6 , on Ma rch 31, 2 01 0, loy me nt and As sistan ce Regul a t ion was r o ved on or a f ter tha t date, an d r eferr ed to i n p aragraph (a) o r (b) was r esid ing on e assista nc e under se c ti on 6 of th e on Mar ch 31, 2 0 10. Employme nt and Ass i s tance e d iat ely be fore its repeal on Marc h 31, 2 01 0. 34.1 (1) as i t appli es unde r se c ti on 1 o f this e s in to force, l l rec o r ds ob taine d under t h e Child, Family and l d S e rvice Act, S. B . C. 1980, c . 1 1, a n d the rson s r eferred to in section 34.1 (1) (a) s t permit the minister to use and d to in section 34.1 (2) (b) (i) or (ii) for the (a) of this sub section. that when an indiv idual is f o und i neligible, s he r a provision in the EAA and E A R, a reÂ
c us tody of a child. Th e m i n i stry argued that e ven w conclud e that a legal adop t ed guardia n of a c hild is th e appellant curr e n tly res i des wit h h e r legal ado pted CIH R. Appellant's po s itio n The appellant's posi tion is t h a t the r e co nsid er ation decision of the b est interests of the child as se t out in the Family Law Commun i t y Service Act, as it leaves the appe l lant w argued that she and her husband are grandf a thered into March 4, 2 01 O lette r from MCFD, and it i s currently the onl caring for the chi ld. The representativ e ar g u e d that the ministry has looked at the situat t he small lense of the definition of a "parent" because the app should have done a fu ll review give n th e history and circu argued that since there was no d efinition of " p arent" in the EAR as of March 31, 2010, the applicable definit io n i s t he o rd i nary meanin g o f the t e rm and gr sense u n less some legislative provision stat e s that they are p a r g u ed tha t, a ccordin g to the defi n i tion a dded t o the E "parents" of the chil d si nce shortly a f ter th e child came into their h were en t itle d to custody bf t he chi ld, and the ap pel lant wa b e el igibl e for CIH R ass istance u ntil the adopt i on in 20 P a nel de cisi on Se ction 6 o f t he EAR w as repea l ed in M ar c h of 2 01 0 Program Transition Regulat io n (Tra nsi tio n Regulation) was R egulat io n st i p ulat e s tha t th e p ro vision s referri ng t o ap plying i n r el ati on to such a child or the rel ati ve wit on March 31, 2010 , co ntinue to a ppl y until th e dat e assist an ce under S e ct i on 6 of th e E AR a s it read on Marc r ead o n Marc h 31 , 2 0 1O st ates that a ch ild is e l igi ble are m et, in cl ud in g t hat t he ch ild r esid e s wi t h her "re lat "relative" in relation to a child does not incl u de th e child's p assistance as a CIH R s ince 2008 as she has resided with "relatives"; however, in or about August 2013, the grandparents adopted the child and the ministry found that the status of the grandparents thereby changed. grandparents became the child's "p ar e nt s" so that t h no longer meets the first criteria for eligibility in Section 6(2) of the EAR. The ministry's position is that when the grandparents adopted the child in or about August 2013, the grandparents became persons legally entitled to c us "par ent s," pur s u a nt t o t he definitio n prescribed in Sectio Howev er, the Transition Regulation specifically states that the provisions of the EAR as the regulation read on M arch 31, 201 0 ap ply i n rel atio n t child resides and, at that time, the EAR contained no definition of "parent." was not added to Section 1 of the EAR until October 1, 2012. The panel finds that the ministry applied the definition of "parent" set out in the EAR as of October 1, 2012, which is not the applicable enactment acco rdin g to the provisions of the Transition Regulation, and the applicable enactment is, rather, the EAR as it read on March 31, 2010. AP PEAL# I i thout this prescr ibed defini tion, it is reasonable to the chi ld's p arent. T he ministry ar g u e d tha t since parents, she is not eligib l e for assistance a s a is in con fli ct wit h the overarching principle Act a nd the Child , Fa mily a n d ithout support. The app e ll ant's representativ e the CIHR prog ra m , as confirm ed by the y benefit available to support them in io n throu gh el la n t was adopted and the ministry m stances of the child. The representative a ndpa r ents are no t cons idered par e nts in a legal are nts. The a p pel la nt 's represe ntat i ve AR, s h e and her h usband have bee n the om e s evera l y e a rs ago , s i nce they s nev ert heles s c o ns idered by t he ministry to 13 . and th e Chil d i n t he Home o f a Rela t ive en a c ted at that time . The T ransi tio n a c h i l d in the home of a re l ative, or o therwis e h wh o m su c h a child re s id es, as the E AR re a d the child ceases t o b e eli g i ble f o r inc ome h 31 , 2010. Secti o n 6(2) of the EAR as it fo r i ncom e ass istance a s l o ng as thr e e c riteri a ive . " Secti on 6(1) o f t he E AR st ates th at a aren t . Th e ap pel lant h a s bee n in recei p t of her paternal grandparents as her The ministry argued that t he e c h i ld no longer resides with her "relatives" and tody of the child a nd thereby bec ame the child's n 1 of th e EAR which is currently in eff ect. o such a child or t he relative wit h w h om such a The definition of parent
APPEAL# I However, the ministry also argued that even without the prescribed definition for "parent", ii is reasonable to conclude that a 'legal adopted guardian of a child' is the child's "parent." The appellant's representative argued, on the other hand, that since there was no definition of parent in the EAR on March 31, 2010, that the ordinary meaning of the term should be relied upon and grandparents are not considered "parents" in a legal sense, unless some legislative provision states that they are parents. The appellant's representative wrote in the Request for Reconsideration that she and her husband had to consult lawyers, a mediator, and a private social worker in order to plan and prepare for the step of adoption and to cover the legal aspects of the adoption. Although the appellant's representative stated at the hearing that no one explained the full ramifications of the adoption to her, she wrote in the Request for Reconsideration that "as legal parents," they now have the authority and the ability to make decisions based on the child's best interests and safety. The evidence demonstrates that the appellant's grandparents, after securing legal advice, considered themselves as "legal parents" of the appellant at the time of the adoption in August 2013. The panel takes notice of the provisions of the Adoption Act, RSBC 1996, c. 5, particularly Section 37(1 )(b) which relates to the effects of an adoption order and provides that "the adoptive parent becomes the parent of the child." The panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the grandparents became the appellant's "parents" pursuant to the effect of the adoption order. The panel finds further that the ministry reasonably determined that, at the time of the adoption, the appellant no longer resided with her "relatives" and no longer met all of the eligibility criteria of Section 6(2), becoming ineligible for income assistance as a CIHR, pursuant to Section 6(2.1) of the EAR. Conclusion Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the ministry's reconsideration decision, which concluded that the appellant currently resides with her "parents" and is, therefore, no longer eligible for assistance pursuant to Section 6 of the EAR, was reasonably supported by the evidence and the panel confirms the decision.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.