BC Limits Child Safety Plans to 45 Days

Summary#

• This bill updates B.C.’s child protection law to clearly allow “safety plan agreements.” These are short-term plans made during an assessment or investigation to keep a child safe without needing an immediate court order.

• It sets who can be part of a plan, what it must include, how long it can last, and how it can end. It also recognizes existing safety plans and puts time limits on them.

• Key changes:

  • Creates a formal “safety plan agreement” that a child protection director (Ministry official) can make during or after an investigation.
  • Sets a maximum term of 45 days and allows plans to be verbal, with a written copy prepared as soon as possible.
  • Defines who can be parties: the director; certain parents; people with court‑ordered contact or access; and, for Indigenous children, the Nation or Indigenous community’s legal entity may be included.
  • Requires plans to state the reasons, each party’s role, safety steps, and any limits on care or access; parents must be told they can get independent legal advice at any time.
  • Lets the director or other parties withdraw, with rules on notice; plans end on the earliest of withdrawal, an agreed date, or the end of the term. New plans can replace or follow earlier ones if needed.
  • Treats existing “safety plans” as safety plan agreements and caps them at 45 days from when the law starts, unless they end earlier or are replaced.

What it means for you#

• Parents and caregivers

  • You may be asked to enter a safety plan during a child protection check. It can set rules about who cares for the child, supervision, contact or access, and steps you must take (or avoid) to keep the child safe.
  • The plan can be made verbally at first. A written copy should follow. It can last up to 45 days.
  • You must be told that you can get your own legal advice at any time.
  • You can withdraw as the agreement allows. The plan can also end if the time runs out or all parties agree.
  • The director can withdraw at any time if they think the plan is no longer needed or is not enough to keep the child safe. If giving advance notice could put the child at risk, the director does not have to warn you before ending it.
  • A safety plan does not stop the director or a court from taking other steps, including seeking court orders.

• Youth under 19

  • If you are a parent or another person the law allows to be a party, you may enter into a safety plan even if you are under 19.

• People with contact or access rights (for example, a grandparent with a court order)

  • You may be added as a party. If you leave the plan, it does not end the plan for everyone else.

• Indigenous families and communities

  • If the child is Indigenous, the First Nation, Treaty First Nation, Nisga’a Nation or Village, or another legal entity for the child’s Indigenous community may be included as a party.
  • The plan must set rules for how any shared information is used, kept secure, and shared with that party. This can support community involvement in keeping the child safe.

• If you already have a safety plan

  • Existing plans continue under the new rules. If the old plan had no end date, or longer than 45 days, it will end 45 days after the law starts unless replaced sooner.
  • If the old plan did not say how to withdraw, you can leave it by telling the director at least 3 days in advance. The director can also withdraw under the new rules.

Expenses#

• No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Puts clear rules in law for safety plans that were already used in practice, which adds transparency and consistency.
• Gives child protection staff a fast, flexible tool to keep children safe while an investigation is underway, without waiting for a court date.
• Limits plans to 45 days to prevent open‑ended arrangements and encourages timely follow‑up or court action if needed.
• Requires telling parents they can get independent legal advice, helping them understand their rights and options.
• Allows Indigenous Nations or community bodies to be part of plans for Indigenous children, and sets privacy rules for shared information.
• Recognizes existing safety plans so there is no gap in protection during the transition.

Opponents' View#

• Verbal plans can take effect without signatures, which may cause confusion about what was agreed and make it hard for families to challenge terms.
• The director can end a plan without warning if they think notice could risk the child, which some see as too much power with limited oversight.
• Short 45‑day plans can be replaced by new plans, which critics worry could string families along without prompt court review.
• Inclusion of Indigenous Nations or community bodies is allowed but not required; some may view this as too weak on Indigenous involvement and data governance.
• Sharing information with added parties, even with conditions, could raise privacy concerns for families.
• The bill tells parents they can seek legal advice but does not guarantee access to free or low‑cost legal help, which may limit the benefit for low‑income families.