The father appealed a child protection order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access and sought placement of the child with proposed caregivers under a supervision order.
The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the caregivers’ ability to care for the child and erred in concluding that continued parental access was not in the child’s best interests.
Applying the standards of correctness and palpable and overriding error, the court found ample evidence supporting the trial judge’s findings, including concerns about the proposed caregiver’s health, past parenting difficulties, and the risks associated with parental access.
The trial judge properly weighed the competing placement proposals and emphasized the importance of permanency for a child who had been in care since birth.
The appeal was dismissed.
