The child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown Ward without access to the biological parents.
The mother opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial, while the father was in default and did not participate.
Applying Family Law Rule 16 and the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Evidence from a parenting capacity assessment and consistent observations of social workers demonstrated that the mother had not developed the ability to safely parent despite extensive services and supports.
The court concluded that the child’s best interests required permanent Crown wardship without access to allow prompt adoption.
