The appellant mother appealed a child protection judgment making her three children Crown wards.
She sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the trial judge erred by admitting and relying heavily on a court-ordered parenting assessment by Dr. Lynch, while disregarding competing medical reports.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it was available at trial.
The court held the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in admitting Dr. Lynch's report under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, nor in preferring his evidence over the appellant's experts.
Claims of judicial bias and ineffective trial counsel were also dismissed.
