The parents appealed a trial judge's final order making their child a Crown Ward with no access under the Child and Family Services Act.
The appeal grounds included allegations of judicial bias, usurpation of the trier of fact's role by an expert, exclusion of evidence, and failure to consider the child's return to the mother.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions.
The court upheld the reliance on expert evidence regarding long-term neglect and the mother's inability to cooperate with supervision, which rendered continued access detrimental to the child's best interests and permanency planning.
