The appellant father appealed a Crown wardship order regarding his biological child.
He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal that he had separated from the child's mother, who had been found incapable of parenting.
The appeal judge refused to admit the fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the fresh evidence met the test for admission as it was highly relevant and potentially decisive.
However, applying the fresh evidence, the Court concluded that the child's best interests still required Crown wardship, given the child's strong bond with his foster family over the past 17 months.
The appeal was dismissed, but the costs order against the father was set aside.
