The appellant mother appealed a child protection disposition ordering crown wardship without access for two children apprehended at birth.
She argued that the trial judge erred in finding a risk of continued litigation if the children were placed with family caregivers and failed to properly follow the statutory pathway under the Child and Family Services Act in declining supervision or custody orders.
The appellate court held that the trial judge’s inference regarding future litigation was supported by the evidentiary record, including the mother’s litigation history and continuing efforts to regain custody.
Fresh evidence concerning a temporary kinship placement did not demonstrate that the trial judge erred in declining less intrusive alternatives.
The court concluded that the trial judge properly considered the statutory options and reasonably determined that crown wardship without access best served the children’s interests in certainty and finality.
