The appellant society appealed temporary child protection orders that required access arrangements for a child in temporary society care and limited placement to a residence within a two-hour travel time to facilitate in-person family access.
The appeal argued that the motion judge exceeded jurisdiction by effectively controlling placement under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act while the child remained in temporary society care.
The court held that the judge lacked authority to direct placement itself but retained broad jurisdiction under s. 94(8) to make access orders and ancillary terms consistent with the child's best interests and family reunification.
The impugned distance restriction was found to be ancillary to access, reasonable on the facts, and not an impermissible placement direction.
The appeal was dismissed.
