[DIV class=storyheader] [H2] This would piss me off. Seriously. Another example of a woman completely trying to cut the father out from his kids, then when he found out about it, she signed the child away in spite.. and he cant do anything. You know if she kept the child and didnt inform him.. she would wait a few years then present him with a massive bill and he would HAVE to pay or else. Canadian courts dont care about the fathers. Never have and probably never will.
NOTE: Not all women are like this.. but the bad ones always seem to stand out. Sorry to the ones that I have generalized. Its the courts that frustrate me.
[/H2] [H2][A href="vny!://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=07c6bd69-1398-4cb7-b4d5-59aa719ae3b4&k=0"]vny!://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=07c6bd69-1398-4cb7-b4d5-59aa719ae3b4&k=0[/A][/H2] [H2]Father loses biological custody case[/H2] [H4]Saskatoon judge awards adoptive parents sole custody of nine-month-old baby[/H4]
[DIV class=feed_details] [H4]Kelly Patrick, National Post[/H4][SPAN]Published: Monday, January 29, 2007[/SPAN]
In a custody battle that pitted an earnest biological father against the
couple who adopted his son at birth, a Saskatoon judge today awarded sole
custody of the nine-month-old baby to his adoptive parents.
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench Justice Shawn Smith went further,
however, barring the child's 34-year-old father from visiting his son for
one year, unless he and the adoptive parents reach a voluntary agreement.
"I am of the view that [the baby] should have a period of one year of
familial calm," Judge Smith wrote in explaining why he decided to cut off
the weekly visitations the father has had since last fall.
"He's extremely disappointed," Mark Vanstone, the father's lawyer, said.
A publication ban protecting the baby's identity prohibits the printing of
the father's name, the mother's name and the names of the Prince Albert,
Sask. couple who took custody of the child shortly after his birth last
April.
Although it may seem counter intuitive that the father's biological link to
his son did not carry more weight, Canadian courts have for decades put the
"best interests of the child" ahead of blood ties.
"I conclude from all the evidence, without hesitation, that [the baby's]
best interests are served by granting custody to the [adoptive parents,]"
Judge Smith wrote.
"It is clear that they present an environment that will best provide for his
health, education, emotional well being, opportunity for training and
economic and intellectual pursuits."
The father and the baby's mother, who dated on and off for less than a year,
broke up in November, 2005.
The father was not aware his former girlfriend was carrying his child until
a relative of the mother tipped him off shortly before the boy was born.
At that point the father and his new fiancé began a pitched fight to be in
the boy's life. A DNA test confirmed the father's paternity.
Meanwhile, the mother signed over custody to the Prince Albert couple.
The couple's lawyer, Dale Blenner-Hassett, said they are "very relieved" at the decision.
"They feel it was the right decision, and for the right reasons," he said.
He said the couple has not yet decided whether they will allow the father to see his son over the next year.
A visit previously scheduled for this morning did not go ahead, Mr. Blenner-Hassett said.
The father is scheduled to speak at a press conference at his lawyer's Saskatoon office at 3 p.m. ET.
That really sucks, Russ. They should not have barred the child's biological father from seeing his own kid. That's wrong and definitely 'not' in the child's best interest. I mean, he didn't even know his GF was pregnant at the time.
That kid will be messed up once he hits his adult years. He might blame his adoptive parents when he's older.
There's nothing the father can do about it. The mother signed away rights. You don't have to tell someone you are pregnant. The baby is sole custody of the adoptive family now.
This goes under the same file of your pregnant you sign away the baby to a couple and then a couple months later after the baby is born you want the kid back. You can't do that.
Yeah I know that the father is angry that the girl never told him but thats how it goes. Its within her rights to tell him nothing. And plus they dated off and on obviously she got pregnant before they broke up and then didn't get back together. So she just moved on.
My cousins did that with there kids the fathers have no legal rights to the children. One of them is insane and the other is a drug dealing dad who has another kid but could care less about his daughter. So my uncle didn't push for child support of any kind because then that gives the dead beat fathers a window to take the children down the line.
The father was not aware his former girlfriend was carrying his child until
a relative of the mother tipped him off shortly before the boy was born.
At that point the father and his new fiancé began a pitched fight to be in
the boy's life. A DNA test confirmed the father's paternity.
The ex was so f*cking cruel. How could she do that to him? How can she assume that HE doesn't want to be a part of the child's life? Ok, I understand that the relationship broke down, afterthefact, but the child should not be punished for the adult's problems. That is totally unfair. She should've discussed this pregnancy with him no matter how much anger and tension there might have been in that relationship.
She's cruel and evil. Oh, I hate people like that. Makes women look bad.
If I ever broke up with my guy and I so happened to find out that I was pregnant, he'd be thef irst to know. If I can't find him, I'll contact his family members to find him. At least, we can then discuss what the next steps should be. Ie, abortion or not.
Oh, that's just so uncalled for.
Agreed. I bet she did it to spite him.
I would've just aborted that "potential" baby if the father was not reachable.
I'd have done the same. pl. What it sounds like is that the mother signed away the rights before the father knew but as I said earlier the mother doesn't have to tell the partner anything. Rightly or wrongly thats the truth.
I have to look that law up, SD. It just doesn't sound right. I couldn't just not tell my patner no matter what arguments/feud I was in.
Its the law. My cousin didn't tell the father of her kid (the drug dealer) until the baby was born and they ran into each other on the street somewhere (he was probably looking to hook up with her again). But yeah they never told him but then again he's a dead beat and he didn't care. so....
Yeah, but is it Canadian law as well? Municipal? Federal?
If its the law in social conservative Kansas I bet its the law in Canada and BC. Thats just my hunch.
I almost 100% sure he's right PL.. Thats another thing I mentioned.. after a few years if she then decides she needs money. She has recourse to nail him for child support.. for back childsupport too. Even if she never told him or included him in the baby's life.
Hmm, that's terrible. I don't know how she can live her life knowing that she did that to him and to herself. It's just not right.... not right at all, imo. There, my 2 cents.
Yup. I've seen a ton of celebrity cases where a girl shows up 8 years later and says "You my baby's daddy" celeb goes no way. They go to court to have a dna test, dna test says 'yup he's the baby's daddy' and he pays x amount in child support until the 'baby' is 21.
Yup purelife it is terrible. But nobody said life was fair or easy. The father in the case looks like he's getting married so he can start his own family now. Thats probably what the court said. Plus if he's a young kid lets say my age and this was me, they'd take the adoptive parents in a heart beat because they're most likely financially stable. Always have kids when you have a good financial footing.
Checked up on this story I think I've got the 'whole' story now that might change an opinion or two, maybe.
Adoptive parents win father's custody battle
Globe and Mail
The biological father of an infant boy has lost a high-profile custody battle in Saskatchewan after a court decision granted full custody to the child's guardians and banned the natural father from seeing the child for a year.[/p] In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child's best interests, and should be maintained.[/p] "It is clear that they present an environment that will best provide for his health, education, emotional well being, opportunity for training and economic and intellectual pursuits," wrote Justice Shawn Smith.[/p] The court found the biological father — referred to in the judgment under the pseudonym "Adam" — was capable of having a positive presence in the life of baby "Ian", but not in a parental role.[/p]
Due to that, the court ordered the biological father not gain access to the child for one year, unless all parties agreed otherwise. That would give the child a year of "familial calm" to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the judgment states.[/p] The high-profile case stretches back to autumn 2005, when the child's biological mother "Rose" realized she was pregnant.[/p] Rose and Adam ended their short-lived relationship after an alcohol-fuelled violent incident in mid-2005. [/p] [p style="font-weight: bold;"] In a bid to create a better life for her child, the biological mother sought out family friends "Linda and Dave Turner" and, after much consideration and consultation with counsellors and lawyers, the Turners took the child into their home immediately after his birth.[/p] "Having brought Ian home from the hospital, he has, as is the nature of babies, become the centre of their universe," wrote Judge Smith. "They love him as if he were their own."[/p] The mother stated in guardianship documents that she didn't know who the father was. A DNA test later confirmed the paternity.[/p] The father found out the woman was pregnant a few weeks before the baby was born, and with his fiancée, sought avenues to gain custody of the baby boy.[/p] But on Monday, he lost the long court process to gain custody of his biological son.[/p] [p style="font-weight: bold;"] While the court said Adam displayed the protective instincts of a father and seemed willing to take on the lifelong role of parent, there were many unknowns, mainly stemming from his relationship and family history.[/p] "When one considers the path Adam has travelled, it is, perhaps, not surprising that he presents as emotionally fragile. However, it is appropriate to note that he has shown grit and determination in his pursuit for custody of his child," the judge wrote. "Many in his circumstance would have faltered. He has not."[/p] [p style="font-weight: bold;"] Yet in the end, being an "adequate" parent was not the best test to determine what was in the best interests for that child, and the judge concluded that "from all the evidence, without hesitation, ... Ian's best interests are served by granting custody to the Turners."[/p]
So the father laid a beat down on the mother, then the mother got scared and didn't know what to do. Yup, I've heard this story before... my cousins.
Here's the CBC article excerpts:
"The judge also said the parties should get together to allow the father some access to the child. During the custody trial in Saskatoon late last year, court heard the father never cohabited with the mother, but briefly had an intimate relationship with her. The relationship ended following an incident where the man had been drinking alcohol and struck her."
[/p]Looks like a one night stand that lingered type of deal[/p]and rule number one: don't hit women.[/p]"When she learned she was pregnant, she made arrangements with the couple in another Saskatchewan community to have custody of the child. The woman felt she couldn't raise the child herself and said she didn't know the man was the father, having been told previously he was sterile."
Thats really odd, telling a women your sterile on a short fling like that? To me that says "lets use a condom, no sweetie no need to my junk don't work." Bizarre. Don't know who to believe there.
"The boy's grandmother offered a third option to the courts. She said she should have custody to ensure that the boy is raised in a way that respects his First Nations heritage. She didn't want the child raised by a non-biological family."
I think that understanding something like that is tough if you're not in the situation.
One of my best friends got pregnant after dating a guy for 3 months. She quickly realized that he was not a good guy at all when he told her that if she didn't get an abortion he'd never talk to her again. He went back and forth and played all kinds of head games with her. He was incredibly nasty and showed a side that was scary.
She finally pretended to get an abortion and he wanted to make an appointment at a clinic to make sure that she wasn't pregnant. He picked the clinic and the two of them saw the doctor together. The doctor gave her a cup and she went into the bathroom and closed the door. She went to the bathroom and instead of pee-ing in the cup, she got the cup of pee that her sister had given to her 20 minutes earlier and put that in the cup. Obviously the test came out negative.
They never saw each other again after that. She had the baby a couple of years ago and is a single mom. The father lives downtown, and she lives in Cloverdale so they wouldn't run into each other. I ran into him once when I was in Vancouver and he made some nasty comments about her and I think that in this circumstance the child is far better off
without him.
My girlfriend is engaged to a guy that is awesome. He's a firefighter and has even taken my friends little boy to the firehall to sit in the fire truck. Great guy and a great dad.
I just saw more as well in the National Post.. interesting how information keeps getting staggered in ways to make different opinions.
I agree Ally, circumstances are different. In that case, I can understand why she had done that. I'm happy to hear that your friend is doing well.
Thats why I went to a 'nuetral' point of view the globe and the CBC. The National Post could spin things to the right and the Star could spin things to the left.
Sportsdude wrote:
Thats why I went to a 'nuetral' point of view the globe and the CBC. The National Post could spin things to the right and the Star could spin things to the left.
Really? I like the CBC to a certain extent, but I 100% disagree with you on the globe and mail. It reminds me of CNN.. biased.
But I tend to have a difference of opinion on news agencies with people in the US.. grew up on different values of news.
Well the National Post is the only newspaper the Conservatives read.
Out of the three main
National Post- Right wing
Globe and Mail- moderate (they agree on certain left issues and right issues)- they are offically a 'republic' paper they are on the record for ditching the Queen. They've got both left and right of centre type people.
Toronto Star - Left wing
La Presse- moderate/pro-canada
I'm so glad for your friend, Ally. At least she made the right decision and found someone good enough to care and love her for who she is. I feel good that her kid will now have a wonderful father. Good for her.
I wish my cousins could find guys like that but I think they are incapable mainly because I really deep down don't think they care about their kids. Its too obvious to me that they see them as an accesory instead of a child. For example they still do risky behaviour that they did before they got pregnant. Blame the mother though, my cousin had a boob job at 14 because her mom my aunt was worried she wouldn't have boobs. Then the day after new years this year the other cousin got a boob job. *sigh*