Myriam Bedard: "“I’m only thinking of her well-being”: Maude's best interest or advocacy spin?

Myriam Bedard is back in Canada and, for about one hour, she has been out on bail. This article from the Toronto Star explains that "She was given bail with conditions, including supervised visits with her daughter, not being allowed to leave Quebec and surrendering her passport."

The article also reports that she claims to be making decisions for Maude's sake as opposed to her own preferences: “I’m only thinking of her well-being.” Now, how should the law reconcile priorities that interfere with one another? Is it in Maude's best interest to be with her mother (even in another jurisdiction) and even if that interferes with Maude's ability to have meaningful access and a relationship with her father?

This case is a microcosm of what family courts must consider everyday. If the starting point is that Maude is best served by being with her mother, Myriam's relationship with Maude will take precedence over Maude's relationship with her dad, even if this represents a sacrifice and something Maude may regret as an adult. Some would instead argue that the most important factor is a matter of child rights, i.e. Maude's right to have meaningful relationships with both her parents (assuming both parents are involved and interested).

The State will tend support the former option. If Maude were less than 12 (usually between 8 and 10), the "special relationship" hierarchies (that are arguably gender discriminatory and inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) would make it so that Maude's relationship with her mom would be a priority. Now that Maude is 12 , she would be asked about her preferences. These will typically reflect what she is used to. The problem here is that many children who are asked to make loyalty choices at a young age will regret those choices as an adult. Maude may later lament what she missed for the State not having enforced her rights to have meaningful access with both of her parents. Unfortunately, there is often a psychological toll on the child associated with such choices.

Where this article is flawed is that it does not clarify whether Maude's father, Pierre, has been denied access to Maude previously or if he is a disinterested father, which Ms. Bedard's lawyer, Me John Pepper, has claimed: The article explains:

"Bedard’s father, Pierre, was in court and has had little contact with his daughter in recent years." The next line in the Star is quite ambiguous:

“I haven’t talked to her in four years,” he said."

Has he not talked to Maude or his Myriam in four years?

I have written the Star to seek clarification on this ambiguous point.