Gia Williams

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion to terminate a supervision order granted on May 31, 2016, which had placed a child in the care of the father.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The father and the child's counsel supported the Society's request.

The court found that the child had transitioned well into the father's care, the home was stable, there were no ongoing protection concerns, and the child did not wish to meet with child protection workers or counsel.

The court granted the Society's motion and terminated the supervision order, finding no genuine issue for trial and that termination was in the child's best interests.