Despite her efforts, the mother continued to rely heavily on external support
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench upheld a permanent guardianship order (PGO) for three children due to their mother’s ongoing mental health challenges and inability to care for them independently.
The PGO, originally granted by the Alberta Court of Justice in February 2023 under Alberta’s Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act (CYFEA), gave permanent custody of the children to the Director of Child and Family Services. This order followed seven years of state interventions and support services provided to the mother in attempts to stabilize her situation and support her ability to parent.
Despite these efforts, the children had remained in government care for extended periods, with one child in care for 692 days and the other two for 516 days by the start of the original trial. The mother appealed the PGO, challenging the lower court’s decision on several grounds, but the court ultimately found that the decision met legal standards and was in the children’s best interests.
The mother argued on appeal that the trial judge improperly denied her request for an adjournment, which she claimed hindered her ability to present additional evidence of her progress. She also asserted that the judge failed to fully assess the children’s best interests and neglected to consider less severe alternatives to a PGO. However, the Court of King’s Bench found that the trial judge had fairly evaluated the adjournment request, balancing the mother’s situation against the children’s need for stability and timely resolution.
In reviewing the best interests analysis, the mother argued that the trial judge did not sufficiently recognize her recent efforts, including her engagement with mental health support and parenting programs. The court, however, found that the trial judge had applied the CYFEA properly, prioritizing the children's welfare, and noted that, despite the mother’s efforts, she continued to rely heavily on external support and showed limited progress toward independent care. The court agreed that the mother was unlikely to meet the children's high needs independently within a reasonable time frame.
The mother also proposed that a less permanent intervention, such as a family enhancement agreement, could allow for temporary state supervision instead of a PGO. The court found that the trial judge had already considered and ruled out this option, pointing to the extensive history of temporary supports, including five family enhancement agreements and two temporary guardianship orders, which had proven insufficient to ensure the children’s long-term welfare.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original PGO on the basis that the children’s long-term safety and stability outweighed the mother’s appeal to regain custody. The children remain under permanent guardianship of Child and Family Services, with the court emphasizing that their need for stable, secure care is paramount in these circumstances.
