The welfare of an 11-year-old Jamaican girl hangs in the balance amid a bitter international custody dispute, with her mother alleging that the child, who has special needs, was wrongfully retained in Canada by her father, a naturalised Canadian citizen.
The child, who, according to court documents, had been physically abused while living with her father and paternal grandmother, is now in the custody of a court-assigned guardian.
Her mother is challenging the decision by a court in Quebec, arguing that her daughter should not have been placed with a stranger while she is willing and able to care for her in Jamaica.
“It’s what you would call a parent’s worst nightmare,” the woman, whose name is being withheld because of court orders, told The Sunday Gleaner.
She said the dispute began in August 2023 after she verbally agreed to let her daughter travel to Canada for one month to undergo a diagnostic assessment because the child had been displaying behavioural challenges at school in Jamaica.
The mother said attempts to secure an assessment at Mico CARE Centre failed because of a two-year wait, leaving her with little choice but to agree to the trip. She said it was for this reason that the child, then eight years old, later acquired Canadian citizenship after discussions with her father, who had re-entered her life in 2022 after a prolonged absence.
communication cut off
Just over a week after the child arrived in Canada, the mother said communication was cut off. She said the father later informed her that he had enrolled the child in school in Quebec and that she would not be returning to Jamaica, insisting that Canada was a better environment for her.
Efforts by The Sunday Gleaner to reach the child’s father were unsuccessful. Calls to his cellphone were not answered, and he did not respond to a WhatsApp message seeking comment.
The mother, who said she was denied a visitor’s visa by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), challenged the decision, reminding the father that their daughter was supposed to return before the start of the new school year. After several confrontations, communication resumed in September.
During a video call, she said she noticed scars on her daughter’s body.
The mother said the child told her that she had been abused by her father and grandmother after misbehaving.
She said she attempted to contact Quebec’s Youth Protection as well as the police in Canada and Jamaica to report what her child, who was diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), had told her.
However, she said calls to Canadian agencies went to voicemail while Jamaican police advised that the matter was outside their jurisdiction.
In 2025, in email correspondence seen by The Sunday Gleaner, the woman sought assistance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. The ministry acknowledged the woman’s report concerning her child and requested additional documents, which she noted, via email, she had delivered to its office. It is not clear what actions followed.
She also said the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) initially told her it could do nothing, although the agency later told The Sunday Gleaner it only became aware of the matter two years after the child had left Jamaica.
The mother said the father blocked all communication, confiscated the cellphone she had given the child and prevented further contact.
After dozens of calls and recorded voice messages, Canadian authorities contacted her in January 2024 and advised that Quebec’s social services agency would be notified. The matter was later taken before the court by the Department of Youth Protection (DYP).
More than two years later, the court ruled on June 9, 2026, that the child’s safety and development were compromised under Section 38 of the Youth Protection Act.
two years behind
The court found that psychological and academic assessments showed that the child had “very low” overall intellectual development and was approximately two years behind in some subjects.
It also found that members of the father’s household used inappropriate isolation tactics, including locking the child in her room, and, on one occasion, leaving her outside during a snowstorm.
The court further ruled that the child had suffered psychological harm because she was caught in an ongoing loyalty conflict between her parents.
It found that the father had historically restricted or blocked communication between the child and her mother as punishment while the mother made deeply distressing comments during calls, telling the child that her father “stole” her and that “all white people are racist”.
The judgment also said that the mother frequently distressed the child by threatening to stop calls altogether.
Additionally, the court found that the child had been subjected to unacceptable physical discipline. It noted that the father admitted striking her with a belt and grabbing her face while reports indicated that the grandmother had slapped her and struck her with the flat side of a cooking pot. Although physical marks had previously been observed, the court noted that no new incidents had been reported since June 2025.
The court issued a 12-month protection order aimed at stabilising the child’s environment.
Justice Hugo Rousse allowed the child to remain in her father’s custody, noting that the grandmother had made significant progress since a social worker began educating her and the father on how to treat a child with special needs. He said the father had also shown genuine improvement in his relationship with his daughter.
Both parents were ordered to cooperate with the DYP, and the father was required to attend regular meetings addressing discipline, consistency of care, and parental availability.
The judge recognised the child’s wish to maintain a relationship with her mother but limited contact to two supervised phone or video calls each week, each lasting 30 minutes.
He also ordered that the mother maintain a neutral tone about the father’s household and refrain from questioning the child about her daily life.
The judge further recommended that the father and the DYP eventually facilitate a structured trip to Jamaica so the child could gradually reconnect with her country of origin and extended family when emotionally ready.
Days later, however, the DYP filed an urgent application seeking the child’s immediate removal from her father’s care.
According to court documents seen by The Sunday Gleaner, the father had failed to comply with the court’s protective framework. The filings alleged that he refused to participate in the child’s mandated educational programme and cooperated only minimally with her school.
The documents also alleged that threats of physical punishment remained part of the father’s disciplinary approach.
The child reportedly told officials that she felt isolated and rejected, saying that “no one loves her at home”.
The filings stated that her behaviour at school had deteriorated significantly, resulting in multiple suspensions.
The DYP asked that custody be stripped from the father and that the child be entrusted to a woman, who The Sunday Gleaner will not name, as a significant person who understands the child’s needs.
Further, the DYP asked that any ongoing contact between the child and her father be subjected to strict guidelines.
The DYP also asked that the court “declare that the security and the development of the child are still in danger”.
The Sunday Gleaner has learnt that the child has since been removed from her father’s house and placed with the assigned guardian.
The mother described the development as “distressing” and a miscarriage of justice.
“I am terrified. You see, sometimes you do some things, and your child gets affected mentally. They grow up hating you while you were just trying to do what you thought was best for them. That is what I am fearful of: that she’s going to get hurt moving from house to house. When kids move around like that, all kinds of things happen to them,” the woman said.
The Sunday Gleaner sent questions to International Social Services Canada (ISSC) concerning the welfare of the child, but the agency’s executive director, Sylvie Lapointe, said its role in the matter was minimal.
“ISS Canada only acts as a liaison between international agencies. We would recommend that you ask the questions to the authorities in Jamaica and the province where the file would have been initiated,” Lapointe said.
A media inquiry sent to the court in Quebec remained unanswered, and IRCC said the matter was outside its purview.
Responding to a Sunday Gleaner query, the CPFSA confirmed its involvement in the case but clarified that its international mandate is strictly cooperative and advisory.
The agency indicated that it does not possess the legal jurisdiction to order the child’s repatriation from a foreign court.
The agency confirmed that it completed a home assessment of the mother at the request of Quebec Youth Protection Services through ISSC.
The report, seen by The Sunday Gleaner, noted that the woman raised her daughter for eight years without requiring social-services intervention. It concluded that the child should be returned to Jamaica.
“It is the caseworker’s professional view, based on observation and interview with [name omitted], that it would be in [name omitted]’s best interest for her to return to her mother’s care,” the 15-page report concluded.
However, the CPFSA, in its response to The Sunday Gleaner, cautioned that a favourable home assessment in Jamaica does not automatically trigger or guarantee a child’s repatriation.
The agency further noted that international child protection operates on cross-jurisdictional cooperation.
It said that because the child is physically located in Canada, the final binding decisions regarding her custody and residence rest entirely with the Court of Quebec or competent Canadian authorities.
“Outside of its functions as the Jamaica Central Authority under the Hague Convention, the CPFSA does not have a specific statutory mandate to pursue the return of a child from another jurisdiction solely because a parent in Jamaica wishes to have the child returned,” the agency said.
“The agency’s involvement in such matters is generally limited to situations where there are concerns regarding the child’s safety, welfare, or care arrangements in the foreign jurisdiction, or where assistance is requested by a court or competent authority abroad. Notwithstanding these limitations, the CPFSA routinely provides assistance to left-behind parents and foreign authorities in matters involving Jamaican children overseas,” it added.
The agency explained that not every cross-border case ends in a child returning to their country of origin. It said the overriding objective is the “best interest of the child”.
kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com
