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

[Renegade]

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?

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in the quote. If I correctly understand you, the man will be a person of influence, no different than any other adult. Correct?

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.

No, for both the man and women it is essential that they make their legal standing clear PRIOR to waiting to see how long the relationship last. It would indeed be foolhardy for the parties, to try and enter a contract after the child is born depending upon if the relationship last.

This couple may be going into this contract with the assumption that their relationship will not last, and thus wish to make clear the parenting intent of each party.

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.

It is force and coercion which takes away the free will of both parties to freely enter into a contract. The man is being forced to be designated as a parent. So absolutely there is force involved. If the rest of your argument is that if the guy is around he will have influence on the child, ok, I agree. But influence doesn't make him a father, any more than all the other adults around a child who influence the child make them the father.

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.

What exactly do you mean? The guy is pretty clear, he doen't want to be a father. The woman too is clear, she wants to be a mother. It is you who is speculating pretty far out that somehow he will change his mind and become attachec to the child and want the fatherly duties. By your own words there are people who had fathers who were abusive or didn't care. At least this guy is definitively stating he is not accepting that role, nor the privilidges nor the responsiblities. If the mother is ok with it, why shoudl the govenment intefere?

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

I can see how your justice and rights works.

[BornAlbertan]

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?

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in the quote. If I correctly understand you, the man will be a person of influence, no different than any other adult. Correct?

Yes. And it is a culmination of those influences that makes the child who they become.

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.

No, for both the man and women it is essential that they make their legal standing clear PRIOR to waiting to see how long the relationship last. It would indeed be foolhardy for the parties, to try and enter a contract after the child is born depending upon if the relationship last.

This couple may be going into this contract with the assumption that their relationship will not last, and thus wish to make clear the parenting intent of each party.

Perhaps she should be considering whether this guy is worth it??

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.

It is force and coercion which takes away the free will of both parties to freely enter into a contract. The man is being forced to be designated as a parent. So absolutely there is force involved. If the rest of your argument is that if the guy is around he will have influence on the child, ok, I agree. But influence doesn't make him a father, any more than all the other adults around a child who influence the child make them the father.

Hmmmm....I still say they shouldn't even be together.

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.

What exactly do you mean? The guy is pretty clear, he doen't want to be a father. The woman too is clear, she wants to be a mother. It is you who is speculating pretty far out that somehow he will change his mind and become attachec to the child and want the fatherly duties. By your own words there are people who had fathers who were abusive or didn't care. At least this guy is definitively stating he is not accepting that role, nor the privilidges nor the responsiblities. If the mother is ok with it, why shoudl the govenment intefere?

I was pretty clear to. They want completely different things out of life so therefore they should not be together.

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

I can see how your justice and rights works.

I can see how your sense of humour doesn't.

[Renegade]

Yes. And it is a culmination of those influences that makes the child who they become.

Agreed.

Perhaps she should be considering whether this guy is worth it??

Worth what? Perhaps she has already considered and decided that this guy is not worth being her child's dad.

Hmmmm....I still say they shouldn't even be together.

Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, it's their call not either of ours.

I was pretty clear to. They want completely different things out of life so therefore they should not be together.

I was not aware that the determination of whether one person was a fit for another was relegated to anyone else but the couple themselves. Perhaps you would like to enforce in law, the rules of what makes people compatable.

I can see how your sense of humour doesn't.

How can you, when I haven't yet attempted to be humourous.

[Peter F]

Here's the link for the Alberta Court Decision:

JaneDoe vs. Alberta

I quote 3 para's of the judges reasons for deciding that the contract entered into does not over-ride the Family Law Act of Alberta...

[

22] In my opinion, the answer is to be found in the context of the relationship between Jane and John Doe. 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. 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?

[23] In my opinion, a relationship of interdependence with the mother of the child in the same household, of itself, will likely create a relationship of interdependence of some permanence, vis-àvis the child. John Doe’s subjective intent not to assume a parental role will inevitably yield to the needs (and not merely the physical needs) of the child in the same household. Were it otherwise, one can only imagine the emotional damage visited upon the child. One must keep in mind that, among the factors cited in s. 48(2) is the child’s perception of the person as a parental figure.

[30] I would add only that the child’s interests were not represented in the Court below nor on appeal. I question whether public policy would countenance a declaration of the sort sought by the Appellants without a careful assessment on an adequate factual foundation of the child’s interests and benefits that might be adversely affected.

an eminantly sensible decision.

[Riverwind]

an eminantly sensible decision.

In other words, you believe that anyone living in the same household as a child should automatically be forced to support that child financially. That would include brothers, sisters, friends, nannies or even roommates because they cannot (according to the court) possibly avoid assuming a parental role if they live in the same household.

If you disagree then explain why having sex with the mother confers parental responsibility on an individual.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

In other words, you believe that anyone living in the same household as a child should automatically be forced to support that child financially. That would include brothers, sisters, friends, nannies or even roommates because they cannot (according to the court) possibly avoid assuming a parental role if they live in the same household.

If you disagree then explain why having sex with the mother confers parental responsibility on an individual.

No. I believe the parent or one who is in a parental position should automatically be 'forced', as you say, to support that child.

Someone's gotta support the child...

In some cases, I suppose, that will be a brother or a sister or a 'friend' or a nannie or possibly even a room-mate. It would be so if they have taken on the role of parent. Perhaps you should read the decision. The court doesn't say (as you apparently think it does) that anyone living in the same house is a parent.

Since I disagree with you extreme libertarian position on this matter, you ask me to explain why having sex with the mother confers parental responsibility on an individual: It doesn't. So nothing need be explained.