Parents appealed a child protection decision finding three children in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and ordering Crown wardship without access for two children, with the third placed with the biological father under supervision.
The trial judge had concluded that one or both parents inflicted serious injuries on one child but could not determine which parent was responsible, and that the other parent failed to protect the child.
The appellants argued errors in credibility findings, failure to properly assess evidence, and improper consideration of changed circumstances.
The court held that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and attracted appellate deference absent palpable and overriding error.
Considering the severity of the injuries and the ongoing risk to the children, the court found that the disposition was in the children’s best interests.
