The appellant appealed a decision granting permanent wardship of a child with no access, arguing that circumstances had substantially changed since the original decision, including the death of a younger child and the original foster mother, and the appellant's continuing efforts to improve parenting abilities.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence amply supported the lower courts' findings and that the changes did not alter the expert conclusion that permanent wardship with no access was in the child's best interests.
The court noted the child had been in a stable and loving foster home for three years and upsetting that stability would not be in the child's best interests.
