Docket: 1919 P.P. Appellant - v. -, 2011 SKCA 15

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKCA 15 Date: 20110201 Between: Docket: 1919 P.P. Appellant - and - Ministry of Social Services Respondent Pursuant to s. 26 of The Child and Family Services Act , there will be an order prohibiting the publication of any report which discloses the identity of the child who is the subject matter of this proceeding. Coram: Lane, Ottenbreit and Caldwell JJ.A. Counsel: P.P. appearing on her own behalf Charita Ohashi for the Respondent

Appeal: From: 2010 SKQB 55 Heard: February 1, 2011 Disposition: Appeal dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: February 4, 2011 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit The Honourable Mr. Justice Caldwell Lane J.A. [ 1 ] The self-represented appellant appeals an order out of Queen’s Bench permanently committing the appellant’s child, now five years old, to the Minister pursuant to s. 37(2) of The Child and Family Services Act , S.S. 1989-90, c.

C-7.2 (the “ Act ”). [ 2 ] Before us, the appellant argued she would be a good parent for her child and, when the child was in her custody, the child was well looked after and was not abused. She argued she wanted another chance. [ 3 ] In fact, the child has seldom been in her mother’s custody since she was one year old. The child has been with the same foster parents for nearly four years and the child is treated as one of their own.

Although the appellant was critical of the present foster parenting situation, no such critical evidence was tendered at trial. [ 4 ] The appellant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 1985 and has a long history of treatment for her illness. Psychiatric reports were admitted at trial by consent. The appellant denied her condition and testified as to the reasons for her noncompliance with prescribed medication. [ 5 ] The evidence before the Queen’s Bench judge demonstrated the appellant had a long history of difficulties coping with parenthood.

She clashed many times with Ministry officials who were trying to address the issues. The child was placed in foster care under a residential services agreement made pursuant to s. 9 of the Act in the term of which was that the appellant maintained contact with the child. The visits were infrequent. [ 6 ] At trial, the appellant testified her plan was to go to Alberta and take a security course with a view to obtaining employment. She also proposed to put the child up for adoption to two people she identified, however, she did not know their last names. [ 7 ] The facts are fully set out in the judgment below.

The power exercised by the trial judge is a discretionary power and therefore our task is one of review to determine if the trial judge erred in law, disregarded or overlooked some relevant evidence, or failed to act judicially. [1] We are satisfied the trial judge correctly applied the law and made no palpable or overriding errors in his findings of fact. We agree with the reasons of the trial judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.