The father appealed a trial judge's order making his child a Crown ward and denying him the right of access, instead granting the child the right to hold access.
The father argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his plan of care and erred in the access determination.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.
The trial judge's conclusions that the father's plan of care was not viable and that granting the father access would impair the child's future adoption prospects were fully supported by the evidence.
