Birkin James Culp

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice decision dismissing her motion to be added as a party to child protection proceedings involving six children who had been made Crown wards.

The appellant sought participation in order to propose a kinship placement plan, arguing that the motion judge improperly relied on conflict with the Children’s Aid Society and failed to properly consider her suitability and the feasibility of a home study.

The court applied the deferential appellate standard for factual and discretionary decisions in family and child protection matters, emphasizing that appellate intervention requires a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence supported the motion judge’s concerns about the appellant’s lack of cooperation with the Society, incomplete background checks, and the likelihood that adding her as a party would unduly delay proceedings affecting the children’s stability.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the court dismissed the appeal.

A custody and access trial involving two young children born to unmarried parents who cohabited at the paternal grandparents' home before separating in January 2011.

The father sought sole custody with alternate weekend access to the mother; the mother sought sole custody with specific weekly access and child support from the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father based on his more stable lifestyle, superior parenting regime, and demonstrated commitment to the children's welfare, while granting the mother significant access on alternate weekends and holidays.

The court found that the father's structured parenting approach was more beneficial than the mother's less supervised approach, and that the children responded better behaviorally in the father's care.

The court terminated the father's child support obligation as of September 1, 2012.

The appellant parent appealed an order dismissing his appeal to the Superior Court from a decision granting the Children's Aid Society permanent wardship of his two children.

The Superior Court had dismissed the appeal for delay because the appellant failed to perfect the appeal by obtaining transcripts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, noting the paramount concern for the children's need for stability and permanency.

The Court also found the appeal had virtually no prospect of success, as the trial judge's findings of inadequate parenting skills were fatal and there was no evidence of bias or inadequate assistance of counsel.

The appeal was dismissed.