Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-06-2007, 11:33 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default The state can't decide what makes a parent

The state can't decide what makes a parent
Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Single mothers know perhaps better than most women that good men are hard to find. What they might not know is that once you've found one, it could be hard to keep him in his place; or, more specifically, you might not be able to stop him from becoming a parent to your children.

Take the case of Jane Doe.

A single, financially and emotionally independent woman, Jane Doe shares her home with boyfriend John Doe (no, not their real names). She wished to become a mother. He had no desire to be a father. So, respective of each other's wishes, Jane proceeded to become the mother of a child through artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm donor.

The Family Law Act in her home province of Alberta indicates that irrespective of their wishes, John Doe is assumed to have parental obligations to Jane Doe's child, essentially because he shares a bedroom with her.

Both Jane and John wished to excuse John from those obligations and rights through legal contract. They created an agreement validating their choice of lifestyle and giving clarity to their relationship.

So, while the two happily share a home, they wanted to make it legally clear that Jane's decision to become a single parent meant that she, and only she, is the child's parent and John is neither the biological parent nor should he be considered either the adoptive parent or legal guardian of Jane's child. And they asked the court to validate that contract.

It is difficult to understand why this would be a problem. Neither Jane nor John was seeking to change the law, which, as a default mechanism, has value in protecting women with children in common-law relationships from being left emotionally and economically high and dry when such a relationship ends or from feeling economically trapped in a dysfunctional relationship.

All Jane wanted to do was make it clear that she doesn't need the state's protection. She doesn't want a husband or a "father," de facto or in loco parentis, for a child that she planned, conceived, bore and intends to parent entirely on her own accord and of her own free will. She was asking, in essence, for legal approval of her status as a mature, emotionally and financially independent professional woman entirely capable of making her own lifestyle decisions and willing to independently bear the burden of parenthood as a single mother.

The answer from the courts, so far, has been "no" at both the Court of Queen's Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal.

As a result, Jane Doe's lawyers have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to consider her case. One hopes it will do so, because the decisions to date leave women like Jane in a terrible position socially, legally and emotionally. The decisions, which some view as state paternalism, mean women can only be entirely in control of their lives if they don't have children.


In other words, while Jane was living as a non-parent, she could freely share her home and/or her heart with John Doe, assuming only those joint financial obligations the two decided to engage in. However, once she became a mother, even independently, the courts have indicated through their decisions that she now must share her child and her parental status with John. Jane is therefore legally barred from being an entirely independent woman and single mother -- with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that -- so long as she shares her home with John.

Women may have reproductive choice in this country, but once they've made the choice to reproduce, parental choice appears to be a matter of state control

If good men were hard to find before, they'll be pretty much impossible to uncover if the state insists on maintaining an interest in what goes on in single mothers' bedrooms. One can only hope the Supreme Court will recognize that women should be free to live their lives as they wish.

Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur are law students at the University of Toronto.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2007, 07:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wellesley, Ontario
Posts: 109
Denisem is on a distinguished road
Default Wonderful for them....

Great for them....but what about the child....when the child is old enough to know he/she was not wanted by Jon...then what????
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spousal/Child Support Question Jenny Divorce & Family Law 6 10-01-2013 12:01 AM
Why 'shared' custody? sasha1 Political Issues 35 07-01-2010 12:17 AM
Co-parenting ----post divorce bearall Parenting Issues 14 05-25-2010 11:14 AM
Still trying to get a child support order fedupp Financial Issues 3 03-17-2009 10:16 AM
How credibility is affected in the eyes of Judges. gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 12 03-12-2006 03:05 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:35 AM.