The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship of a young child without access.
The parents opposed the motion and sought the child’s return to their care under supervision, arguing that factual disputes required a full trial.
The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child’s serious prior neglect, extensive parental history of child protection involvement, missed access visits, and inability to address the child’s special needs.
Applying the best‑interests factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded that permanency planning was required and that Crown wardship was appropriate.
The court further held that the parents failed to establish that access would be meaningful and beneficial to the child or that it would not impair adoption prospects.
