The appellant mother appealed a child protection order making her child a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption under the Child and Family Services Act.
She alleged multiple errors of fact and law by the trial judge, including improper weighing of the Society’s plan against her plan of care and reliance on outdated expert evidence.
The Superior Court emphasized the deferential standard of review applicable to factual findings in child protection proceedings and the requirement to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error.
The court found the trial judge had carefully considered the evidence, including the mother’s instability, lack of cooperation with the Society, and the child’s long-term placement with a foster family willing to adopt.
The appellant failed to rebut the presumption against access to a Crown ward, and the order was upheld.
