This bill inserts a new provision into Prince Edward Island’s Child, Youth and Family Services Act to address situations where a child withdraws from parental custody without consent and faces risk. It authorizes child-welfare and police actors to intervene so the child can be taken to a ‘place of safety’ while preserving a mechanism for judicial authorization.
The change matters because it fills an operational gap: existing removal powers assume parental custody but are less clear when a child has voluntarily left home. The provision aims to speed protective responses while creating a legal route for search and entry, emergency removal, and short-term custody decisions — with implications for police practice, child-welfare casework, and parental rights.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds section 28.1, which lets the Director of child welfare or a police officer apply to a court, without notice, for a warrant to bring a child to a place of safety where the applicant has reasonable grounds to believe the child withdrew from parental custody without consent and is endangered. The court may issue a warrant based on sworn information authorizing entry, search and removal; the Director or police may also act without a warrant where danger is immediate or the child may leave the area.
Who It Affects
Provincial child-welfare authorities (the Director), police services, courts that will hear ex parte applications, parents whose child has left home, and children who run away or withdraw from parental custody. Community shelters and custodial facilities that receive children placed in a ‘place of safety’ will also be implicated.
Why It Matters
It clarifies how authorities can intervene when a child runs away — a common and legally fuzzy scenario — by combining judicial oversight (ex parte warrants on sworn information) with explicit emergency exceptions and a telewarrant option. That mix changes frontline decision-making, evidentiary practices, and the thresholds for entering private premises.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new statutory tool for situations where a child has left parental custody without permission and is believed to be at risk. Either the Director of child welfare or a police officer can go to a court and, on sworn information, request an ex parte warrant that authorizes them to locate the child, enter and search premises where the child is believed to be, and take the child to a ‘place of safety.’ The application can be made without prior notice to parents or other parties.
If circumstances are urgent, the provision allows the Director or police to act without waiting for a warrant—specifically where the child’s safety is in immediate danger or where the child might leave the area before a warrant could be obtained. When a police officer acts under the section, they must promptly report the intervention to the Director.
In non-protection cases the statute directs that the child be returned, as soon as reasonably possible, to the custody of one or both parents according to the parenting arrangements that existed before the child left.The bill also builds a trigger into the protection framework: if, after intervention, the Director or police have reasonable grounds to conclude the child needs protection and cannot be safely returned to parental custody, the child is treated as if removed under the Act’s existing removal provisions (cross-referencing sections 25 and 26). Finally, the bill allows applications under this section to be made by telephone or other telecommunication, facilitating remote or expedited judicial authorizations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court may issue an ex parte warrant based solely on the sworn information of the Director or a police officer; the application is allowed to proceed without notice to other parties.
A warrant under the new section explicitly authorizes entry into and search of premises where the child is believed to be, for the purpose of taking the child to a place of safety.
The Director or a police officer may act without a warrant if they reasonably believe the child is in immediate danger or may be removed from the area before a warrant can be obtained.
When a police officer takes a child to a place of safety under this section, the officer must promptly report the circumstances to the Director; the Director must return the child to parental custody as soon as reasonably possible unless the child is deemed in need of protection.
The bill permits applications under this section to be made by telephone or other telecommunication (a telewarrant), enabling remote judicial authorization.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Grounds for intervention when a child withdraws from parental custody
This clause establishes the two-part factual threshold for intervention: (a) that the child has withdrawn from parental custody without consent; and (b) that the child’s safety or well-being is or is likely to be endangered. Practically, that requires an applicant to form and be able to articulate reasonable grounds for both elements before seeking a warrant or taking action. The language focuses on the child’s voluntary departure (rather than forcible removal by a third party), which responds to a gap where runaways previously sat outside explicit removal powers.
Ex parte warrant: sworn information, entry, search and removal
This subsection lets the Director or a police officer apply to a judge or justice without notice and, on being satisfied by sworn information, the court may issue a warrant authorizing entry, search of premises and removal of the child to a place of safety. The mechanics are ex parte: the judge decides on the applicant’s sworn account alone, so the quality of evidence and how swearing is done (affidavit, oral oath) will matter. The provision explicitly ties the warrant to locating and taking the child rather than longer-term custody orders.
Emergency exception permitting action without a warrant
Subsection (3) creates a clear immediate-danger exception. Where the Director or police officer reasonably believe the child’s safety is in immediate danger or the child may be removed from the area before judicial authorization is possible, they may enter, search, or remove the child without a warrant. That mirrors common emergency powers but also narrows the exception to two concrete contingencies, which will be tested in practice by how courts review the reasonableness of the belief after the fact.
Reporting, return to parents, and link to child-protection removals
These subsections impose post-intervention duties and set out how the placement interacts with the Act’s protection framework. Police who remove a child must promptly notify the Director; the Director or police must return the child to parental custody as soon as reasonably possible in line with pre-existing parenting arrangements, unless they form reasonable grounds that the child is in need of protection. If so, the child is deemed removed under the Act’s existing removal provisions (section 25 for Director removals or section 26 for police), which triggers intake, investigation and any follow-up protective measures.
Telewarrant — remote application permitted
This short clause authorizes applications to the court by telephone or other telecommunications. It operationalizes expedited access to judicial authorization, especially outside normal court hours or where geography delays in-person applications. The provision raises practical questions about what proof can be transmitted remotely and how courts will record sworn information taken by telephone.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children who run away or withdraw from custody: The statute creates an explicit pathway for authorities to locate and take them to safety, reducing the legal uncertainty that can delay protective action.
- Front-line child welfare workers (the Director’s office): They gain a clear statutory mechanism to retrieve at-risk children and to convert an emergency retrieval into a formal protection removal when necessary.
- Police services: The bill gives police explicit authority to act in tandem with child-welfare officials, including a legal basis for entry and search in urgent situations.
- Judges/justices: The provision gives courts a defined ex parte role to authorize retrievals, allowing judicial oversight of interventions that would otherwise be unilateral.
Who Bears the Cost
- Police agencies: Increased operational duties, evidentiary preparation for ex parte applications, and responsibilities to report and coordinate with the Director will consume officer time and training resources.
- Director/child-welfare agency: The agency may handle more emergency placements, investigations converting to protection files, and logistical placements in ‘places of safety’—all without a dedicated funding stream in the text.
- Parents and guardians: Families may see incursions into homes or loss of immediate custody when children are retrieved; parental privacy and decision-making autonomy are curtailed in qualifying situations.
- Homeowners/occupants and third parties: The explicit warrant-based search and entry power raises privacy and property intrusion risks for third parties who might harbor a child, especially where ex parte judicial review limits prior notice.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speed and oversight: the bill empowers fast, sometimes warrantless, action to protect a vulnerable child who has left parental custody, which can prevent harm, but it does so by narrowing prior notice and relying on ex parte judicial decisions and after-the-fact review—raising hard questions about parental rights, privacy, and the potential for overreach when authorities act on imperfect information.
The bill balances rapid protective intervention against procedural safeguards, but several implementation gaps create real risks. First, the ex parte warrant regime depends entirely on the quality of sworn information provided by the Director or a police officer; the statute does not specify required content, corroboration standards, or time limits on how long an ex parte authorisation remains effective.
That creates post‑hoc litigation risks about whether the applicant had ‘reasonable grounds.’
Second, the emergency exception permits warrantless entry and removal in two broad scenarios—immediate danger or imminent removal from an area—but the text lacks explicit instructions about the least intrusive alternative, use of force limits, or requirements to obtain judicial ratification promptly after an emergency removal. Those omissions could magnify privacy and Charter-like concerns (in a Canadian provincial context) where entries into private residences occur without contemporaneous judicial supervision.
Finally, telewarrant wording expedites access to authorization but raises evidentiary and record-keeping questions: courts will need protocols for how sworn statements taken remotely are documented and preserved.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.