The state can't decide what makes a parent

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...l?id=4232f369-
0c37-42e6-9a74-104aa7a9d83b

The state can't decide what makes a parent
Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Single mothers know perhaps better than most women that good men are
hard to find. What they might not know is that once you've found one, it
could be hard to keep him in his place; or, more specifically, you might
not be able to stop him from becoming a parent to your children.

Take the case of Jane Doe.

A single, financially and emotionally independent woman, Jane Doe shares
her home with boyfriend John Doe (no, not their real names). She wished
to become a mother. He had no desire to be a father. So, respective of
each other's wishes, Jane proceeded to become the mother of a child
through artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm donor.

The Family Law Act in her home province of Alberta indicates that
irrespective of their wishes, John Doe is assumed to have parental
obligations to Jane Doe's child, essentially because he shares a bedroom
with her.

Both Jane and John wished to excuse John from those obligations and
rights through legal contract. They created an agreement validating
their choice of lifestyle and giving clarity to their relationship.

So, while the two happily share a home, they wanted to make it legally
clear that Jane's decision to become a single parent meant that she, and
only she, is the child's parent and John is neither the biological
parent nor should he be considered either the adoptive parent or legal
guardian of Jane's child. And they asked the court to validate that
contract.

It is difficult to understand why this would be a problem. Neither Jane
nor John was seeking to change the law, which, as a default mechanism,
has value in protecting women with children in common-law relationships
from being left emotionally and economically high and dry when such a
relationship ends or from feeling economically trapped in a
dysfunctional relationship.

All Jane wanted to do was make it clear that she doesn't need the
state's protection. She doesn't want a husband or a "father," de facto
or in loco parentis, for a child that she planned, conceived, bore and
intends to parent entirely on her own accord and of her own free will.
She was asking, in essence, for legal approval of her status as a
mature, emotionally and financially independent professional woman
entirely capable of making her own lifestyle decisions and willing to
independently bear the burden of parenthood as a single mother.

The answer from the courts, so far, has been "no" at both the Court of
Queen's Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal.

As a result, Jane Doe's lawyers have asked the Supreme Court of Canada
to consider her case. One hopes it will do so, because the decisions to
date leave women like Jane in a terrible position socially, legally and
emotionally. The decisions, which some view as state paternalism, mean
women can only be entirely in control of their lives if they don't have
children.



In other words, while Jane was living as a non-parent, she could freely
share her home and/or her heart with John Doe, assuming only those joint
financial obligations the two decided to engage in. However, once she
became a mother, even independently, the courts have indicated through
their decisions that she now must share her child and her parental
status with John. Jane is therefore legally barred from being an
entirely independent woman and single mother -- with all the rights and
responsibilities that go along with that -- so long as she shares her
home with John.

Women may have reproductive choice in this country, but once they've
made the choice to reproduce, parental choice appears to be a matter of
state control

If good men were hard to find before, they'll be pretty much impossible
to uncover if the state insists on maintaining an interest in what goes
on in single mothers' bedrooms. One can only hope the Supreme Court will
recognize that women should be free to live their lives as they wish.

Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur are law students at the University
of Toronto.

These rules and laws PREdate a lot of technology advances and it is assumed
that the live in bf is actually the bio father even though it is clear he is
not, the laws are not keeping up with technology.

Robert

"Henry" wrote in message
...


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...l?id=4232f369-
0c37-42e6-9a74-104aa7a9d83b

The state can't decide what makes a parent
Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Single mothers know perhaps better than most women that good men are
hard to find. What they might not know is that once you've found one, it
could be hard to keep him in his place; or, more specifically, you might
not be able to stop him from becoming a parent to your children.

Take the case of Jane Doe.

A single, financially and emotionally independent woman, Jane Doe shares
her home with boyfriend John Doe (no, not their real names). She wished
to become a mother. He had no desire to be a father. So, respective of
each other's wishes, Jane proceeded to become the mother of a child
through artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm donor.

The Family Law Act in her home province of Alberta indicates that
irrespective of their wishes, John Doe is assumed to have parental
obligations to Jane Doe's child, essentially because he shares a bedroom
with her.

Both Jane and John wished to excuse John from those obligations and
rights through legal contract. They created an agreement validating
their choice of lifestyle and giving clarity to their relationship.

So, while the two happily share a home, they wanted to make it legally
clear that Jane's decision to become a single parent meant that she, and
only she, is the child's parent and John is neither the biological
parent nor should he be considered either the adoptive parent or legal
guardian of Jane's child. And they asked the court to validate that
contract.

It is difficult to understand why this would be a problem. Neither Jane
nor John was seeking to change the law, which, as a default mechanism,
has value in protecting women with children in common-law relationships
from being left emotionally and economically high and dry when such a
relationship ends or from feeling economically trapped in a
dysfunctional relationship.

All Jane wanted to do was make it clear that she doesn't need the
state's protection. She doesn't want a husband or a "father," de facto
or in loco parentis, for a child that she planned, conceived, bore and
intends to parent entirely on her own accord and of her own free will.
She was asking, in essence, for legal approval of her status as a
mature, emotionally and financially independent professional woman
entirely capable of making her own lifestyle decisions and willing to
independently bear the burden of parenthood as a single mother.

The answer from the courts, so far, has been "no" at both the Court of
Queen's Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal.

As a result, Jane Doe's lawyers have asked the Supreme Court of Canada
to consider her case. One hopes it will do so, because the decisions to
date leave women like Jane in a terrible position socially, legally and
emotionally. The decisions, which some view as state paternalism, mean
women can only be entirely in control of their lives if they don't have
children.



In other words, while Jane was living as a non-parent, she could freely
share her home and/or her heart with John Doe, assuming only those joint
financial obligations the two decided to engage in. However, once she
became a mother, even independently, the courts have indicated through
their decisions that she now must share her child and her parental
status with John. Jane is therefore legally barred from being an
entirely independent woman and single mother -- with all the rights and
responsibilities that go along with that -- so long as she shares her
home with John.

Women may have reproductive choice in this country, but once they've
made the choice to reproduce, parental choice appears to be a matter of
state control

If good men were hard to find before, they'll be pretty much impossible
to uncover if the state insists on maintaining an interest in what goes
on in single mothers' bedrooms. One can only hope the Supreme Court will
recognize that women should be free to live their lives as they wish.

Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur are law students at the University
of Toronto.

I agree in part with the sentiment below that the laws are not keeping
up with the technology. Note, however, that the laws followed DNA
technology VERY quickly, when it came to using the new technology to force
men to pay CS to the mothers of their children.

What does this very obvious disparity tell us? It's simple. Men have
no political clout when their interests are in conflict with those of women,
and -- as Warren Farrell puts it -- in the battle of the sexes only one side
shows up.



wrote in message
news
These rules and laws PREdate a lot of technology advances and it is
assumed that the live in bf is actually the bio father even though it is
clear he is not, the laws are not keeping up with technology.

Robert

"Henry" wrote in message
...


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...l?id=4232f369-
0c37-42e6-9a74-104aa7a9d83b

The state can't decide what makes a parent
Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Single mothers know perhaps better than most women that good men are
hard to find. What they might not know is that once you've found one, it
could be hard to keep him in his place; or, more specifically, you might
not be able to stop him from becoming a parent to your children.

Take the case of Jane Doe.

A single, financially and emotionally independent woman, Jane Doe shares
her home with boyfriend John Doe (no, not their real names). She wished
to become a mother. He had no desire to be a father. So, respective of
each other's wishes, Jane proceeded to become the mother of a child
through artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm donor.

The Family Law Act in her home province of Alberta indicates that
irrespective of their wishes, John Doe is assumed to have parental
obligations to Jane Doe's child, essentially because he shares a bedroom
with her.

Both Jane and John wished to excuse John from those obligations and
rights through legal contract. They created an agreement validating
their choice of lifestyle and giving clarity to their relationship.

So, while the two happily share a home, they wanted to make it legally
clear that Jane's decision to become a single parent meant that she, and
only she, is the child's parent and John is neither the biological
parent nor should he be considered either the adoptive parent or legal
guardian of Jane's child. And they asked the court to validate that
contract.

It is difficult to understand why this would be a problem. Neither Jane
nor John was seeking to change the law, which, as a default mechanism,
has value in protecting women with children in common-law relationships
from being left emotionally and economically high and dry when such a
relationship ends or from feeling economically trapped in a
dysfunctional relationship.

All Jane wanted to do was make it clear that she doesn't need the
state's protection. She doesn't want a husband or a "father," de facto
or in loco parentis, for a child that she planned, conceived, bore and
intends to parent entirely on her own accord and of her own free will.
She was asking, in essence, for legal approval of her status as a
mature, emotionally and financially independent professional woman
entirely capable of making her own lifestyle decisions and willing to
independently bear the burden of parenthood as a single mother.

The answer from the courts, so far, has been "no" at both the Court of
Queen's Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal.

As a result, Jane Doe's lawyers have asked the Supreme Court of Canada
to consider her case. One hopes it will do so, because the decisions to
date leave women like Jane in a terrible position socially, legally and
emotionally. The decisions, which some view as state paternalism, mean
women can only be entirely in control of their lives if they don't have
children.



In other words, while Jane was living as a non-parent, she could freely
share her home and/or her heart with John Doe, assuming only those joint
financial obligations the two decided to engage in. However, once she
became a mother, even independently, the courts have indicated through
their decisions that she now must share her child and her parental
status with John. Jane is therefore legally barred from being an
entirely independent woman and single mother -- with all the rights and
responsibilities that go along with that -- so long as she shares her
home with John.

Women may have reproductive choice in this country, but once they've
made the choice to reproduce, parental choice appears to be a matter of
state control

If good men were hard to find before, they'll be pretty much impossible
to uncover if the state insists on maintaining an interest in what goes
on in single mothers' bedrooms. One can only hope the Supreme Court will
recognize that women should be free to live their lives as they wish.

Lauren Lackie and Stephanie Chipeur are law students at the University
of Toronto.