Dr. Ashbourne

The children's aid society sought extended care and deemed custody orders for four Indigenous children who had been in temporary care for five years following the death of their two-year-old sibling.

The parents sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's severe anxiety, which manifested in unfounded medical and sexual abuse allegations, and the parents' historical neglect.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the CYFSA and the Federal Act, the court granted the society's plan, placing two children in extended society care and two in the deemed custody of kin caregivers.

Supervised access was ordered for three children, while no access was ordered for one child whose severe special needs resulted in extreme dysregulation following parental visits.

The mother appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of her two children without access.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to find the apprehensions were unfounded, failing to adequately address a critique of the section 54 assessment, and failing to consider the maternal grandmother's potential support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error, and concluding that the trial judge's decision was child-focused and amply supported by the evidence.