Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Jul 12, 2007, 02:01 pm

Interesting case with moral and social implications, from 12 July 2007 Globe and Mail newspaper (Canada).

Woman can't absolve partner of parental duty

Canadian Press

July 12, 2007 at 11:04 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to appeal by a woman who wanted to absolve her common-law husband of responsibility for the child she had by another man.

As is its usual practice, the court did not give reasons for its decision in the case of Jane Doe of Calgary, who became pregnant by artificial insemination with an anonymous donor's sperm.

She signed a pre-parenting agreement stating that her common-law husband would not be considered the child's father.

Last February, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against the agreement, saying the man will inevitably act in the role of father because he lives with the woman and her child.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application Thursday for leave to appeal by a woman who wanted to absolve her common-law husband of responsibility for the child she had by another man.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application Thursday for leave to appeal by a woman who wanted to absolve her common-law husband of responsibility for the child she had by another man.

Alberta Crown lawyers filed arguments against her leave to appeal request, which the Supreme Court denied with costs.

The case is considered to have important implications for the rights of single parents to make decisions about their families and relationships.

Regards
S.

ladyphoenix · Jul 12, 2007, 02:09 pm

They've had this discussion in the state of Indiana, and it's come to the same conclusion. No parent can arbitrarily decide to renounce rights and responsibility for a child that they parented.

Jul 12, 2007, 02:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ladyphoenix

They've had this discussion in the state of Indiana, and it's come to the same conclusion. No parent can arbitrarily decide to renounce rights and responsibility for a child that they parented.

What's interesting about the case above is that the woman's common-law partner was not the father. The child was conceived by artificial insemination with sperm from an anonymous donor.

Given the court's reasoning, if the woman was in a permanent living arrangement with her brother, would the brother become the "father" legally because he would (to use the court's words) "inevitably act in the role of father because he lives with the woman and her child." What if the woman was in a same-sex, non-marital relationship, or living with her parents?

Does anyone who lives with a woman and a child in Canada now become legally burden with parental responsibility? I wonder.

Regards
S.

ladyphoenix · Jul 12, 2007, 02:39 pm

No, because a "common-law" like you're talking about is restricted to individuals who may legally be married otherwise. One cannot legally marry one's brother so legally one cannot enter into a "common-law" cohabitation/partnership with one's brother. The nature of the relationship does also play a role. Me and my best friend who happens to be a woman live together. We are not automatically assumed to be an "item" per se... That relationship does NOT exist. We are therefore "roomates" not "cohabiters." Common-law would not apply (even if gays could marry legally).

And just for the record, Indiana doesn't have "common-law" laws anymore. It does not exist, legally, anymore.

Jul 12, 2007, 02:01 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
sdbest Guest Posts: n/a	Woman can't absolove partner of parental duty Interesting case with moral and social implications, from 12 July 2007 Globe and Mail newspaper (Canada). Woman can't absolve partner of parental duty Canadian Press July 12, 2007 at 11:04 AM EDT OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to appeal by a woman who wanted to absolve her common-law husband of responsibility for the child she had by another man. As is its usual practice, the court did not give reasons for its decision in the case of Jane Doe of Calgary, who became pregnant by artificial insemination with an anonymous donor's sperm. She signed a pre-parenting agreement stating that her common-law husband would not be considered the child's father. Last February, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against the agreement, saying the man will inevitably act in the role of father because he lives with the woman and her child. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application Thursday for leave to appeal by a woman who wanted to absolve her common-law husband of responsibility for the child she had by another man. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application Thursday for leave to appeal by a woman who wanted to absolve her common-law husband of responsibility for the child she had by another man. Alberta Crown lawyers filed arguments against her leave to appeal request, which the Supreme Court denied with costs. The case is considered to have important implications for the rights of single parents to make decisions about their families and relationships. Regards S.

Jul 12, 2007, 02:09 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
ladyphoenix Risen From The Ashes Location: Rural Southern Indiana Posts: 263	They've had this discussion in the state of Indiana, and it's come to the same conclusion. No parent can arbitrarily decide to renounce rights and responsibility for a child that they parented. The right of the people to alter or abolish it...

Jul 12, 2007, 02:39 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
ladyphoenix Risen From The Ashes Location: Rural Southern Indiana Posts: 263	No, because a "common-law" like you're talking about is restricted to individuals who may legally be married otherwise. One cannot legally marry one's brother so legally one cannot enter into a "common-law" cohabitation/partnership with one's brother. The nature of the relationship does also play a role. Me and my best friend who happens to be a woman live together. We are not automatically assumed to be an "item" per se... That relationship does NOT exist. We are therefore "roomates" not "cohabiters." Common-law would not apply (even if gays could marry legally). And just for the record, Indiana doesn't have "common-law" laws anymore. It does not exist, legally, anymore. The right of the people to alter or abolish it...