The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision does not name the B.C. daycare, the child or the community where the events unfolded. The complaint was filed by the child’s mother on his behalf.
Article content
A human rights complaint alleging discrimination by an unnamed daycare due to a child’s perceived disability will be allowed to proceed.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision does not name the B.C. daycare, the child or the community where the events unfolded. The complaint was filed by the child’s mother on his behalf.
According to the decision, which was issued last month and released this week, the child began attending the daycare in September 2020 at the age of two. The child’s parents say there were no concerns raised in daily reports for the first few weeks.
Advertisement 2
Article content
In late September, the daycare owner spoke with the parents about the child, noting there was “‘frequent head-butting, leg kicking, hair pulling, pushing with his stomach, and hitting with his hands or fists.’”
The owner suggested the child be assessed for ADHD and autism. The parents said they were shocked and upset “that very little time was provided for (the) child to adjust to this new environment.”
The owner and the family communicated back-and-forth about the issue, as the parents booked appointments with their doctor and completed paperwork for assessment wait-lists. The parents informed the daycare that public assessment waits could be up to two years long.
In early October, daycare notified the parents about an incident in which the child “suddenly kicked friend’s head and scratched friend’s cheek.”
Communications that followed saw the daycare ask the parents to “work on stopping his aggressive behaviour both at the child care and at home,” while the parents suggested “jealousy, a possible ‘sleep regression’ and developmental changes” were possible reasons for the behaviour.
Sunrise
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
The parents then asked to speak with the daycare owner by phone to “make sure (they were) on the same page on what (they could) realistically expect from (the child).”
In an Oct. 15, 2020 email, the daycare owner suggested the family reach out to the B.C. Centre for Ability to schedule an intake meeting, noting that the owner was in touch with the intake counsellor.
“In response, the parents noted that for their next meeting, they would like to ‘clearly establish (the owner’s) role, the expectations for (the child) and what (the owner’s) intentions are as a daycare provider,’” read the tribunal decision.
The parents confirmed they were “going to great lengths to seek medical advice and were simultaneously looking at options for private assessments.”
A week later, the owner met with the child’s father and gave him a letter “terminating the daycare’s services.”
According to the complaint, the owner said the child was “just not getting it” and that they did not have the ability to help a child with behavioural issues, again suggesting the child had ADHD or autism and needed an assessment.
Advertisement 4
Article content
The family eventually found alternate child care and left the daycare in mid-November.
Tribunal member Kylie Buday wrote that because there had been discussions about ADHD and autism assessment, the daycare did view an undiagnosed disability as a possibility for the behaviour and that the behaviour is what led to the decision to terminate child care services.
Buday also said the daycare had not provided enough evidence that they were unable to care for the child, as they continued to do so for several weeks after the termination letter was issued and before the child left.
As a result, Buday denied the daycare’s application to dismiss the complaint and it will proceed.
Recommended from Editorial
Article content
إرسال تعليق