Appeals were brought from a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access.
The mother appealed the denial of access to three of her children, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer appealed on behalf of the children seeking access between the children and their mother and between siblings.
The court found the trial judge misstated the legal test by referring to access rather than the relationship being “beneficial and meaningful,” but held the error did not affect the outcome because the evidentiary record did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship as required by s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.
The court further held that access would impair adoption opportunities.
The appeals were dismissed and Crown wardship with no access was confirmed.
