Do you choose to be a parent or is that choice made for you?

[Renegade]

Today The Toronto Star published this piece by Brenda Cossman, professor of law at the University of Toronto. And `daddy' makes 3 ... Or maybe not

What makes a person a parent? Biology and adoption for sure. But, what about step-parents?

When does a person who is not related to a child by blood or adoption become a parent, with legal rights and responsibilities?

The law has long held that a person might be found to "stand in the place of a parent" if they treat the child as a member of their family. Child support obligations, as well as custody and access rights, would then be recognized. So, for example, a woman comes into a new relationship with a child, and her new partner treats the child as a child of his or her family.

Over time, the law might well decide that the partner is a step-parent.

But, what if the partner doesn't want to be a parent. And what if the mother doesn't want the partner to be a parent either? Can they stop the law from imposing step-parent status?

That is the issue in a case currently seeking leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Jane Doe v. Alberta, a professional woman was in a cohabiting relationship with a John Doe. She said she wanted to have a baby. He didn't. Jane Doe decided to have a child on her own, through alternative insemination from an unknown sperm donor. A child was born.

Jane Doe and John Doe want to continue their relationship, but neither of them want John to be a parent. They want to enter into a contract that says that she's the parent, and he's not. Jane Doe says that her parental liberty rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should allow her to do so.

But, the courts have so far said "no." The trial court, and then the Alberta Court of Appeal both rejected the parental liberty argument. The Court of Appeal went further, holding that John Doe stood in the place of a parent. Alberta family law has a clear test for determining when a person is a parent.

It involves considering a range of factors to decide whether the person has "demonstrated a settled intention" to treat the child as his own. The factors all involve a consideration of the relationship between the child and the person.

How, then, does John Doe, who has clearly said that he doesn't want to be a parent, come to have "demonstrated a settled intention" to treat the child as his own? The answer, according to the Alberta Court of Appeal, is simply because he continues to live with the mother. The fact that he has decided a "settled intention" to remain in a close relationship thrusts him into a parental relationship with the child.

In other words, a romantic relationship with the mother makes a father.

IMV the court rulings to date are devoid of common sense and are contradictory with respect to other laws, such as abortion laws, which recognize that a person has the right to choose to be a parent. The assumptions upon which the court bases rulings, are upon traditional family structures and relationships. It makes no accomodation to the diverse set of relationships which are present today.

Do you think that an individual should simply default into a parental relationship with a child despite their explicit wishes? What makes someone a parent or not?

[Peter F]

Do you think that an individual should simply default into a parental relationship with a child despite their explicit wishes? What makes someone a parent or not?

Yes, someone can be considered a parent by default. In the instance of John Doe above, Mr Doe and his woman friend want things both ways. They will raise the child together but John Doe will not be considered a parent. Sorry, doesn't work that way. To avoid being considered a parent one must avoid parenting.

[Renegade]

They will raise the child together...

Actually nowhere in the facts of the case have I seen that they plan to raise a child together. What is says that John Doe wishes to continue a romantic relationship with Jane Doe. Does that constitute "raising a child together"?

Sorry, doesn't work that way. To avoid being considered a parent one must avoid parenting.

Define "parenting".

[guyser]

If Mrs Doe dies, what does Mr Doe do with the child? He has the longest standing relationship with the child.

And everything is decided on the "best interests " of the child, whether that works or not is debatable. Mr Doe gets the kid likely.

So in fact, the choice is made by you and enforced on you.

(in lieu of any documents that state what goes where or who)

[Riverwind]

Yes, someone can be considered a parent by default. In the instance of John Doe above, Mr Doe and his woman friend want things both ways. They will raise the child together but John Doe will not be considered a parent. Sorry, doesn't work that way. To avoid being considered a parent one must avoid parenting.

They did not agree to 'raise' the child together. They agreed to live together. A brother living with his sister would not be a presumed father. Why should having sex with the mother automatically make you the father of any children she might have?

This particular case does not bring up the bigger aburdity in the law: mother's can collect child support from multiple fathers for the same child if she has a series of relationships.

[Peter F]

They will raise the child together...

Actually nowhere in the facts of the case have I seen that they plan to raise a child together. What is says that John Doe wishes to continue a romantic relationship with Jane Doe. Does that constitute "raising a child together"?

From the article:

"In Jane Doe v. Alberta, a professional woman was in a cohabiting relationship with a John Doe....Jane Doe and John Doe want to continue their relationship, but neither of them want John to be a parent. "

I assume they also wish to continue co-habitating. How can two adults co-habitating avoid having one of the adults involved in raising the child? or not support the child?

If the professional woman doe's not wish John Doe to be a parent, then the professional woman should actually make an effort to remove parenting opportunities from John Doe. ie: stop co-habitating. It is the co-habitating that makes John Doe a defacto parent.

Having a written agreement that John Doe will not be considered a parent does not remove the fact that John Doe will in fact have parenting duties each and every day of the co-habitation. The agreement will not obviate the fact.

Given the information provided in the article you posted, I think the courts are making the correct decision here.

Define "parenting".

raising a child well or badly, for good or ill.

[Renegade]

If Mrs Doe dies, what does Mr Doe do with the child? He has the longest standing relationship with the child.

You make a leap that physical presence in the house constitutes a "relationship" with the child. I'm not sure I agree that presence constitutes relationship. Furthermore, why would it be up to Mr Doe as to what he has to "do with the child"? That is up to the wishes of the only identifable parent, the mother.

And everything is decided on the "best interests " of the child, whether that works or not is debatable. Mr Doe gets the kid likely.

"Best interests" of the child is not the trump card which overrides all other factors. There are many situations in society where other individuals rights are the differentiating factor. For example in abortion rights, arguably the "best interests" of the child is to force the mother to give birth. As another example, would we force adoption of a child to adoptive parents if the adoptive parents can be shown to be better parents, and justifiy the forced removal from the natural parents as being in the "best interests" of the child.

(in lieu of any documents that state what goes where or who)

Actually Jane Doe and John Doe are trying to have a contract signed which specifically states that Jane is the parent and John is not, but they are prevented from entering into such a contract.

[Peter F]

They did not agree to 'raise' the child together. They agreed to live together. A brother living with his sister would not be a presumed father. Why should having sex with the mother automatically make you the father of any children she might have?

This particular case does not bring up the bigger aburdity in the law: mother's can collect child support from multiple fathers for the same child if she has a series of relationships.

Actually they do agree to raise a child together through the continued co-habitation. They can pronounce over and over again how only one of them is actually parenting - but the fact will be that both are actually parenting. I cannot imagine a reasonable means for John Doe to avoid any parenting as long as he is co-habitating with the childs mother and the child.

A brother living with a sister would not be considered the father. But in this case neither of the co-habitants are siblings - so the brother sister argument matters not.

Having sex with the mother does not automatically make you a father unless conception occurs - then it does. Living with the mother who has children that are not the male's will innevitably result in that male being considered a parent. The continued relationship under those cercumstances is tacit, if not explicit, acceptance of the position. A written agreement not accepting parental responsibility is meaningless if parental responsibility is in fact accepted.

Mothers can indeed collect child support from multiple fathers through a series of relationships because each of the 'fathers' had accepted some parental responsibility. That parental responsibility doe's not end until the child is of legal age. There is nothing absurd about this.

[Renegade]

How can two adults co-habitating avoid having one of the adults involved in raising the child? or not support the child?

Would you assume that if Jane Doe had a roommate she was not in a conjugal reltionship with, that the other adult must be involved in the raising of the child and thus must be a parent? Would you assume that the roommate must support the child?

If the professional woman doe's not wish John Doe to be a parent, then the professional woman should actually make an effort to remove parenting opportunities from John Doe. ie: stop co-habitating. It is the co-habitating that makes John Doe a defacto parent.

If I read your position correctly, the simple fact of being in the same residence as the child, makes that person the child's parent. You didn't answer RW's question that if it was siblings sharing the residence, and one decided to have a child, does it make the other the parent.

Having a written agreement that John Doe will not be considered a parent does not remove the fact that John Doe will in fact have parenting duties each and every day of the co-habitation. The agreement will not obviate the fact.

Given the information provided in the article you posted, I think the courts are making the correct decision here.

Here's the thing, whereas in most cases courts have deduced intent based upon actions, in this case the intent is clear and documented. Despite that, the courts have gone with a set of assumptions based upon implied intent, and I think the courts are dead wrong to override both individuals wishes.

Define "parenting".

raising a child well or badly, for good or ill.

Well you havin't provided a lot more detail, you have simply substituted one ambiguous word with another. What constitutes raising? Does that mean that physical presence around the child constitutes "raising"?

[Riverwind]

Mothers can indeed collect child support from multiple fathers through a series of relationships because each of the 'fathers' had accepted some parental responsibility. That parental responsibility doe's not end until the child is of legal age. There is nothing absurd about this.

The is absurd to suggest that a mother can collect support from multiple fathers for the same child. The relationship between the step parent and the child is irrevelant.

[Peter F]

The is absurd to suggest that a mother can collect support from multiple fathers for the same child. The relationship between the step parent and the child is irrevelant.

The relationship between the step-parent and the child is irrevelant? How so?

[Riverwind]

The relationship between the step-parent and the child is irrevelant? How so?

The child already has a biolgical father that is paying support. If the step father has replaced the father then the biological father should be let off the hook. A child should only be entitled to support by one father at any given time.

Your position is also quite absurd if you think about what it means for divorced women with kids. You are basically telling these women that they will not be able to start a new relationship because most men have zero interest in taking on legal obligations for kids that are not theirs by blood or adoption. You are telling men that ending/never starting the relationship with a woman with kids is the only way to avoid assuming these obligations.

Couples should be able to make their own choices and enter into a contract that cannot be overturned by a court later.

[Peter F]

The child already has a biolgical father that is paying support. If the step father has replaced the father then the biological father should be let off the hook. A child should only be entitled to support by one father at any given time.

Well, I disagree. A child should be getting as much support as possible - the more fathers and ex-fathers paying/giving support the better.

Your position is also quite absurd if you think about what it means for divorced women with kids. You are basically telling these women that they will not be able to start a new relationship because most men have zero interest in taking on legal obligations for kids that are not theirs by blood or adoption. You are telling men that ending/never starting the relationship with a woman with kids is the only way to avoid assuming these obligations.

I am not telling these women anything. I am simply agreeing with the courts in the case of John and Jane Doe. That ageeing to co-habitate with someone elses children implies of itself a willingness to take on a parental role. In fact, as the relationship continues a parental role will be assumed wether the party's involved want to or not. If they truly do not want a parental role then dont assume a parental position. Signed agreements will not halt the assumption of the parental role. The courts recognize this and are saying the written agreement will mean nothing in this case.

I would find the reasoning of the court at arriving at thier decision very interesting. Perhaps they had no reason at all.

[Riverwind]

Well, I disagree. A child should be getting as much support as possible - the more fathers and ex-fathers paying/giving support the better.

Then why stop at live in spouses? Why not grandparents? How about neighbors or friends or teachers? Based on your logic I see no reason to limit support to 'father like figures' that happen to have sex with the mother. The legal system needs to draw the line somewhere. One father per child is a sensible limit.

I am not telling these women anything. I am simply agreeing with the courts in the case of John and Jane Doe. That ageeing to co-habitate with someone elses children implies of itself a willingness to take on a parental role.

IOW - you are saying that a man that does not want to assume a parental role has no choice but to leave the relationship. That means you (and the court) _are_ telling women like Jane Doe that they cannot have a relationship with the person they want to have a relationship with because of the court imposed burden of automatic fatherhood.

[Peter F]

Then why stop at live in spouses? Why not grandparents? How about neighbors or friends or teachers? Based on your logic I see no reason to limit support to 'father like figures' that happen to have sex with the mother. The legal system needs to draw the line somewhere. One father per child is a sensible limit.

You are ignoring the fact that the couple in question are living in a common-law relationship. Dragging teachers and nieghbours and one-night stands into it is pure bullshit. A + B want to live together and enjoy thier mutual attraction to each other, yet neither A nor B want B to be in anyway responsible for the child C.

Too bad so sad. Don't live together. Have sex, see each other regularly, enjoy each others company; But live apart. Problem solved.

IOW - you are saying that a man that does not want to assume a parental role has no choice but to leave the relationship. That means you (and the court) _are_ telling women like Jane Doe that they cannot have a relationship with the person they want to have a relationship with because of the court imposed burden of automatic fatherhood.

No. I am saying they should not live common-law if they do not want common-law responisibilities.

Let's suppose the court accepts the agreement...10 years later the mother dies. The child then has no parent and now becomes the ward of the state. Is this correct? Does any responsibility lie upon the significant other at all? Zero? none? Too bad for the kid, but we don't want men having to take responsibility.

If he doesnt want responsibility for the kid then do not live with the kid. Simple. Why is that so difficult to follow?

Do fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility? Do Step-fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility. Do common law fathers?

What makes a father? Does the dead beat fathers responsibility vanish because he doesn't want it? Does the step fathers responsibility to the child vanish? Is there any such thing as parental responsibility? It seems to me that you are claiming that parental responsibility is voluntary and can be rejected at any time.

What happens to the written agreement if some time down the road the mother packs up and leaves. If the co-habitant in the meantime has grown to love the child and care for its wellbeing? Does the agreement still stand? Is the kid shit out of luck ?

[Riverwind]

Too bad so sad. Don't live together. Have sex, see each other regularly, enjoy each others company; But live apart. Problem solved.

A completely arbitrary line has no connection to the way relationships actually work. People should be able to live common law or even get married without assuming parental responsibilities. There are many situations where step parents are already paying support to their biological children which they don't have custody of. Making them pay for their step children simply screws their biological children because there is only so much money to go around.

Let's suppose the court accepts the agreement...10 years later the mother dies. The child then has no parent and now becomes the ward of the state. Is this correct?

Yes - same as if the child was orphaned. Why should it be any different than what would happen if the woman was living alone? It also cuts two ways. The partner would have zero rights if he changed his mind - the child would go to the woman's relatives (this happens to gay couples).

Does any responsibility lie upon the significant other at all? Zero? none? Too bad for the kid, but we don't want men having to take responsibility.

The children are not his. Why should they be his responsibility?

If he doesnt want responsibility for the kid then do not live with the kid. Simple. Why is that so difficult to follow?

Why should the court interfere with the personal lives of people? Non-biological fathers should never have any obligation to kids unless they have actively choosen to assume them by legally adopting them. If the man does not adopt the child then he is no different from an uncle or any other adult male that may be part of the child's life. There are cases where extended families live together. Should the husband of the mother's sister be expected to pay support because he lives with the children?

What happens to the written agreement if some time down the road the mother packs up and leaves. If the co-habitant in the meantime has grown to love the child and care for its wellbeing? Does the agreement still stand? Is the kid shit out of luck ?

Yes. Any such agreement cuts both ways.

[Renegade]

You are ignoring the fact that the couple in question are living in a common-law relationship.

So what if they are in a common-law relationship. Even in such a relationship, while there is a "default" set of laws covering the responsibilities of each partner, the parties can override them by mutual agreement by entering into a written contract. Why would that not apply to parential responsiblites?

Dragging teachers and nieghbours and one-night stands into it is pure bullshit. A + B want to live together and enjoy thier mutual attraction to each other, yet neither A nor B want B to be in anyway responsible for the child C.

Too bad so sad. Don't live together. Have sex, see each other regularly, enjoy each others company; But live apart. Problem solved.

You avoid defending the justification you brought up originally, that "A child should be getting as much support as possible". RW justifiably asked where that support ends and you haven't answered.

No. I am saying they should not live common-law if they do not want common-law responisibilities.

Common-law responsibilites are not fixed and can be changed by mutual agreement.

Let's suppose the court accepts the agreement...10 years later the mother dies. The child then has no parent and now becomes the ward of the state. Is this correct? Does any responsibility lie upon the significant other at all? Zero? none? Too bad for the kid, but we don't want men having to take responsibility.

How is that different than when a single mother dies? Do we draft the nearest man into the role of custodian of the child regardless of if he is willing or not?

If he doesnt want responsibility for the kid then do not live with the kid. Simple. Why is that so difficult to follow?

It is easy to follow that that is your position. What makes little sense is the linking of presence in the house to acceptance of parental responsiblity.

Do fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility? Do Step-fathers have the right to refuse parental responsibility. Do common law fathers?

Yes they all should have that right, afterall don't mothers have that right?

What makes a father? Does the dead beat fathers responsibility vanish because he doesn't want it? Does the step fathers responsibility to the child vanish? Is there any such thing as parental responsibility? It seems to me that you are claiming that parental responsibility is voluntary and can be rejected at any time.

No, I don't think that is what is being said. Parental responsibility should be accepted voluntarily, however once accepted cannot be revoked. What is being stated is that if it was never accepted voluntarily it should not be imposed.

What happens to the written agreement if some time down the road the mother packs up and leaves. If the co-habitant in the meantime has grown to love the child and care for its wellbeing? Does the agreement still stand? Is the kid shit out of luck ?

IMV, the agreement still stands. IMV, the cohabitant would need to apply in court to adopt the child and by doing so accepts the responsiblity of bieing a parent. He shouldn't default into it against his will.

[Peter F]

Well, I made my case, such as it is. I suggest that it may be best to find the judges reason for the decision and argue with that. I can do no more based on the evidence provided.

[BornAlbertan]

Any adult in a childs life for any significant amount of time has taken on a role of influence in a child's life. That culmination of all influences is what makes a child what they become.

Hillary Clinton was not too far off when she said "it takes a village".

Did you ever have a teacher who significantly impacted your life? Every one of mine did up until high school!

How about close family friends that would always drop by to see your parents?

Point is, this guy is screwing the mom. If they live together the child will naturally grow a bond of its own to the guy. Whether they make it clear that he's not a parent or not, the child will develope an undeniably powerful attachment to the guy and perceive him as a father figure. Desired or not there is absolutely no way to avoid this.

They selfishly and irresponsibly toying with the emotional state of the child. There is no sayin whether or not any good or bad will ultimately come of this, but the potential for emotionally scarring the child is a lot greater.

Having said all this, if this man is any sort of a man at all, he too will grow an attachment to the child and accept that his intimate relationship with mom and the time he needs to nurture that relationship will ultimately result in a powerful influence over the child that could only be compared to a parental influence.

Personally, I think both the assholes should be sterilized for being so selfish.

[Drea]

Hubby (commonlaw) and I have an agreement that if anything happens to me he will be resposible for my son (not his).

As this man is, for all intents and purposes, his father.

I have it in my will.

That being said -- if hubby and I split I would not go after child support. Child support is the responsibiltiy of the biological (or adoptive) parents.

[Renegade]

Hubby (commonlaw) and I have an agreement that if anything happens to me he will be resposible for my son (not his).

As this man is, for all intents and purposes, his father.

I have it in my will.

That being said -- if hubby and I split I would not go after child support. Child support is the responsibiltiy of the biological (or adoptive) parents.

Eminently sensible position IMV. However, does the boy's father not have first claim on custody if something happens to you?

[Riverwind]

That being said -- if hubby and I split I would not go after child support. Child support is the responsibiltiy of the biological (or adoptive) parents.

Actually the law disagress with you. If you actually split you would have to go to court to get your divorce approved. At that point the judge would force your hubby to pay child support whether you liked it or not. The only thing you can do is cash his checks and then give the money back to him. That is my beef with the current laws - they treat people like children and don't allow them to make there own arrangements that suit them

[Drea]

Unless Social Services gets involved there need not be any child support at all -- if the couple agrees.

The only reason I had to go after my son's father for support was because I had to (for a brief period) go on welfare.

They forced me to take him to court for child support. They judged that the amount per month should be $315 (based on his income). I had it lowered to $100 per month. The judge thought I was crazy, he said I was the first mother who had ever refused money... LOL

IMO I made the decision to have the child and therefor am 100% responsible. The father really had no choice so why should he have to pay through the nose? FYI, His child support payments go into an RESP for the boy.

Edited to add: I would rather he stay with his stepdad who loves him, as he does not have a relationship with his biological father, who couldn't care less.

[Renegade]

Any adult in a childs life for any significant amount of time has taken on a role of influence in a child's life. That culmination of all influences is what makes a child what they become.

Hillary Clinton was not too far off when she said "it takes a village".

Did you ever have a teacher who significantly impacted your life? Every one of mine did up until high school!

How about close family friends that would always drop by to see your parents?

If you agree that any number of adults in the child's environment have a role of influence in a child's life, how is that none of them save those designated as "parents" are saddled with any legal responsibilites enforcable by law?

Point is, this guy is screwing the mom. If they live together the child will naturally grow a bond of its own to the guy. Whether they make it clear that he's not a parent or not, the child will develope an undeniably powerful attachment to the guy and perceive him as a father figure. Desired or not there is absolutely no way to avoid this.

How do you even know this guy will even be around enough so that the child forms an attachment? If the couple didn't live together, would there not also be such a bond?

They selfishly and irresponsibly toying with the emotional state of the child. There is no sayin whether or not any good or bad will ultimately come of this, but the potential for emotionally scarring the child is a lot greater.

So you think it is less emotionally scarring on the child to have an unwilling father forced upon that child?

Having said all this, if this man is any sort of a man at all, he too will grow an attachment to the child and accept that his intimate relationship with mom and the time he needs to nurture that relationship will ultimately result in a powerful influence over the child that could only be compared to a parental influence.

Maybe so, but the man is making his decisions upon his feelings NOW, and his wishes for fatherhood. If he wishes to change that position because circumstances change later on, he is free to adopt the child with the approval of the mother.

Personally, I think both the assholes should be sterilized for being so selfish.

Even if you are right in your assessment it is not illegal to be sefish. People should be free to enter agreements which clearly state their intentions.

[BornAlbertan]

If you agree that any number of adults in the child's environment have a role of influence in a child's life, how is that none of them save those designated as "parents" are saddled with any legal responsibilites enforcable by law?[/quote[

Welll....considering what I was quoted on there did not at all contain the word PARENT, I would like to know where you get your ascertation about legal responsbilities of parents?

How do you even know this guy will even be around enough so that the child forms an attachment? If the couple didn't live together, would there not also be such a bond?

It is an asumption. If the guy is not going to be around for a duration of time and the child is not biologically his it cannot be assumed he shall be responsible for the child thus negating the need for such a legal proceeding. The fact it is going to the courts as it is suggests that he will be.

So you think it is less emotionally scarring on the child to have an unwilling father forced upon that child?

There is nothing being forced. The fact is, unless the guy does not interact with the child at all, he will in fact have an influence on the child. The child very well may grow up knowing the guy is not "dad"....but his presence and inherent influence on the child will bear some semblance to that of a father. It is called NATURE. Think of all the people out there who are f***ed in the head because they had a father who didn't care or a father that was abusive. Those were not fathers....but they had a significant impact nonetheless.

Maybe so, but the man is making his decisions upon his feelings NOW, and his wishes for fatherhood. If he wishes to change that position because circumstances change later on, he is free to adopt the child with the approval of the mother.

If their current ambitions are so damn far out of line they should not be together in the first place so spare me that bullshit.

Even if you are right in your assessment it is not illegal to be sefish. People should be free to enter agreements which clearly state their intentions.

And some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them.