Final Papers Complete Series Exploring Child and Youth Capacity, Participatory Rights, and Decision-Making

Monday, June 22, 2026 

“I made it my life mission to advocate so what happened to me wouldn’t happen to other children and families.” – Youth Engagement Participant.

The Society for Children and Youth of BC is pleased to share the release of our final two papers of the series examining the intersection of capacity and participation in important pieces of legislation pertaining to young people. The latest papers specifically explore the areas of family law as well as child protection and adoptions.

As shared in our initial announcement on December 12th, 2025, these papers are the culmination of several years of research analysis, writing, and youth engagement. To read this announcement and learn more about the project, click here: New Reports: Children’s Capacity and Participation Rights.

The final five papers of this series include the following: 

1. Capacity: A Principled, Rights-Based Approach to Child Participation (backgrounder on the topic of capacity) 
2. Child Capacity and Participation in Healthcare Decisions 
3. Child Capacity and Participation in BC’s Mental Health System
4. Child Capacity and Participation in Family Law
5. Child Capacity and Participation in Child Welfare & Adoptions

We would like to once again thank the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth of BC for funding this work. We are grateful to Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth and her team for all their efforts in supporting young people across the province.  

For media inquiries please contact info (at) scyofbc (dot) org. 

Read the complete series and summaries of key findings from each paper below:

Capacity: A Principled, Rights-Based Approach to Child Participation

This paper provides a primer on the topic of child capacity in a participatory context that includes a discussion of multiple definitions, key themes emerging from research, and criticisms and limitations. The paper ends with suggesting examples of models to support effective child participation consistent with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). 

KEY FINDINGS:

1. There is no universally agreed upon definition of capacity although there are recurring themes throughout social science.
2. Age alone is not a reliable indicator of capacity. Decision makers should not use age as the sole determinative factor of children’s capacity.
3. All children should be presumed to have capacity to express their views and preferences. Great harm is done to children who are not permitted to exercise their capacity to be heard in matters affecting them.
4. Capacity can be understood as both a function of cognition, as well as an ability or a right one possesses. What it is varies depending on its context or function. Capacity can be a legal right.
5. Capacity encompasses a variety of factors and develops at different rates. Children may possess more or less capacity in different contexts. The capacity to be heard is not the same as the capacity to be the decision maker.
6. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that a child need only be capable of forming a view in order for their view to be heard and considered. There is no further test of cognition or capacity that should stand in the way.
7. Children and youth must be equitably supported to express their views and desires on matters affecting them, using methods that meet their level of capacity.

Child Capacity and Participation in Healthcare Decisions

This paper provides an overview of the legal framework governing children and youth’s capacity and participation in healthcare decision-making within Canada. By contextualizing legal principles within a children’s rights framework informed by the UNCRC, this paper seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics shaping healthcare decision-making processes for minors and the importance of upholding children’s participatory rights.

KEY FINDINGS:

1. Regardless of their decision-making abilities, all children and youth have a right to be heard and to express their views in decisions concerning their healthcare.
2. As in adults, capacity of children and youth encompasses a variety of factors and develops at different rates. It is an evolving trait that may be more or less present in different contexts and can be assessed through a variety of models available to healthcare providers.
3. Healthcare must be patient-centred, with the views and interests of the young patient meaningfully considered in the provision of services. The onus must be on the healthcare provider to find an effective strategy to communicate and connect with their child or youth patient.
4. Dismissal and invalidation by healthcare providers, parents, and other adults contributes to significant negative impacts on children and youth including reduced self-esteem and confidence in their treatment plans.
5. Children and youth would greatly benefit from neutral, third-party support in medical settings that focuses only on their interests, needs, and views.
6. For many children and youth, making healthcare decisions can be an empowering experience, helping them develop individual agency.

Child Capacity and Participation in BC’s Mental Health System

This paper examines various pieces of mental health care legislation, including those pertaining to both voluntary and involuntary care, focusing on how these legislative schemes impact the participation rights of children and youth, and how the current and proposed legislative frameworks do or do not accord with the UNCRC and various other international treaties to which Canada is a signatory. 

KEY FINDINGS:

1. Although a child or youth’s mental or cognitive capacity may fluctuate depending on the nature of their mental illness or
   disability, this does not impact their legal capacity. Their legal rights do not go away because of their perceived lack of cognitive or mental capacity.
2. While children and youth with mental illness may not always make decisions deemed “good” by decision-makers and health care providers, their right to participate in decision making through the expression of their views should not be ignored.
3. It is important to work with a child and youth’s capacity—meeting them where they are at—rather than assuming they lack capacity.
4. When a child or youth’s capacity is denied or taken away, it can create a negative cycle that impacts their ongoing ability to make decisions for themselves and to maintain a sense of autonomy.
5. It is important for children and youth to express their capacity to be heard; to share their opinions and views on their treatment. A legislative framework that presumes a lack of capacity is not consistent with a child’s legal right to be heard.
6. To respect a child or youth’s capacity, it is essential that decisionmakers and care providers share appropriate information with them about their rights and communicate adequately with them about their treatment. This helps a child or youth to be able to understand, to the best of their abilities, the situation at hand and to use this information to form views and make appropriate decisions about their care.
7. Institutionalization can harm the physical, mental, and cognitive development of children and youth, with lasting effects into adulthood. Involuntary mental health detention should be used sparingly, for the shortest time possible, and in select cases.
8. Any proposed legislation and legislative amendments, such as the Mental Health Amendment Act and Safe Care Act, require thorough scrutiny for their impact on children and youth.

NEW: Child Capacity and Participation in Family Law

This paper discusses capacity and child participation rights within the context of family law in British Columbia. Modes of participation are examined along with the legislative framework for those various ways that children may be included in family law decisions. As part of the research, capacity and participation rights in other Canadian and international jurisdictions are also examined.

KEY FINDINGS:

1. All children have the legal right to be heard when decisions are being made about them in family law matters. 
2. There is no universal test for capacity. All children should be presumed to have the capacity to express their views and preferences. 
3. While a child’s maturity may affect the weight to be attached to their views, a child’s capacity should not be a barrier to their right to participate. 
4. A child’s best interests and participatory rights are inextricably linked. 
5. There are numerous ways that a child may participate in family law cases. 
6. Participation is a choice. Children should be informed of their options and permitted to choose if and how they would like to have their views shared. 
7. Practitioners including lawyers, mental health professionals, mediators, voice of the child report writers and judges should have interdisciplinary training in listening to children and inclusion of the child’s voice and views including training in listening to very young children.
8. There should be adequate funding for report writers and children’s lawyers in order to ensure that all children have equal access to justice. 

NEW: Child Capacity and Participation in Child Welfare & Adoption

This paper examines capacity and child participation rights in child welfare and adoption proceedings in British Columbia. The history of child protection and its impact on vulnerable populations provides a backdrop to the current state of the law in British Columbia. Drawing on the framework of the UNCRC and feedback provided by young people, the paper also discusses what a child rights approach would require.

KEY FINDINGS:

1. All children have the legal right to be heard when decisions are being made about them in child welfare and in adoption matters. 
2. There is no universal test for capacity. All children should be presumed to have the capacity to express their views and preferences.  
3. A child’s best interests and their right to be heard are directly linked. Child participation is a necessary part of protecting children. 
4. Children should be provided with independent representatives to represent the children’s views in child welfare proceedings. There should be codes of conduct for those representatives to ensure their independence. 
5. Age alone should not be determinative of whether a child’s views are included in legal proceedings that affect them. 
6. Interviewers should be trained in best practices in hearing from children. They should ensure that children have the tools to understand the decisions that are being made and how they can be  active participants. 
7. Children should be afforded access to independent professionals who are qualified to counsel them on the effects of adoption and ensure that any consents to adoptions are properly informed. Reports of the child’s views on adoption should be prepared by independent professionals, not commissioned by prospective adoptive parents.  
8. Indigenous children continue to be disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. Their meaningful inclusion in decisions affecting them must address this systemic issue.