Annie
02-14-2007, 11:58 AM
Man gets diaper duty as court voids pre-conception contract
Service; Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, February 14, 2007
CALGARY - A pre-pregnancy contract does not allow a man to be freed from the responsibility of changing dirty diapers or feeding a hungry child, Alberta's top court ruled Tuesday.
The case revolves around a Calgary woman who wanted a baby, while her co-habiting male partner did not. She became pregnant through artificial insemination from an unknown sperm donor, and the couple - referred to as Jane and John Doe in the ruling - signed a written agreement saying John Doe has no parental right or obligation of support towards that child, which was born in August, 2005 and lives with the couple.
The couple argued that their written contract should be recognized by the government, and that to not do so would be a violation of John Doe's Charter rights. They sought a legal declaration acknowledging John Doe's non-parental responsibilities. The matter worked its way to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
But while John Doe may not be a proud father, when he entered a relationship of some permanence with the child's mother, he took on some fatherly responsibility, an Alberta Court of Appeal ruling said Tuesday.
"Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? When it stumbles? When the soother needs to be replaced? When the diaper needs to be changed?" wrote Justice Ronald Berger in the ruling.
The couple says the court shouldn't foist a parental responsibility on someone who clearly refused the role.
But when it comes to assisted conception, a man is considered a child's father if he is in an interdependent relationship of some permanence and consented in advance to the conception, according to Alberta's Family Law Act.
Keeping in mind the child's perception, John Doe is effectively a father figure in the youngster's life, Berger wrote.
"The 'settled intention' to remain in a close, albeit unmarried, relationship thrust John Doe, from a practical and realistic point of view, into the role of parent to this child," Berger wrote.
The child's physical - and emotional - needs trump John Doe's subjective intent not to assume a fatherly role, he wrote.
"He chose freely to enter into a relationship of interdependence of some permanence with the mother of the newborn child. Going back to the realities, support obligations flow from the choice made by John Doe."
Service; Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, February 14, 2007
CALGARY - A pre-pregnancy contract does not allow a man to be freed from the responsibility of changing dirty diapers or feeding a hungry child, Alberta's top court ruled Tuesday.
The case revolves around a Calgary woman who wanted a baby, while her co-habiting male partner did not. She became pregnant through artificial insemination from an unknown sperm donor, and the couple - referred to as Jane and John Doe in the ruling - signed a written agreement saying John Doe has no parental right or obligation of support towards that child, which was born in August, 2005 and lives with the couple.
The couple argued that their written contract should be recognized by the government, and that to not do so would be a violation of John Doe's Charter rights. They sought a legal declaration acknowledging John Doe's non-parental responsibilities. The matter worked its way to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
But while John Doe may not be a proud father, when he entered a relationship of some permanence with the child's mother, he took on some fatherly responsibility, an Alberta Court of Appeal ruling said Tuesday.
"Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? When it stumbles? When the soother needs to be replaced? When the diaper needs to be changed?" wrote Justice Ronald Berger in the ruling.
The couple says the court shouldn't foist a parental responsibility on someone who clearly refused the role.
But when it comes to assisted conception, a man is considered a child's father if he is in an interdependent relationship of some permanence and consented in advance to the conception, according to Alberta's Family Law Act.
Keeping in mind the child's perception, John Doe is effectively a father figure in the youngster's life, Berger wrote.
"The 'settled intention' to remain in a close, albeit unmarried, relationship thrust John Doe, from a practical and realistic point of view, into the role of parent to this child," Berger wrote.
The child's physical - and emotional - needs trump John Doe's subjective intent not to assume a fatherly role, he wrote.
"He chose freely to enter into a relationship of interdependence of some permanence with the mother of the newborn child. Going back to the realities, support obligations flow from the choice made by John Doe."