Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Rights of child trump Mom's

Just a little follow-up to a previous discussion about Jane Doe wanting to have a baby without her live-in boyfriend being involved in any way.

Turns out that the Supreme Court denied her request for an appeal.

So baby, Mommy & Daddy make three; even though John Doe doesn't want any part of parenting.

And Junior's rights trump Mom's. Nice to see for a change.

From the Star:

"So one of the messages is that we treat children differently from property."

4 comments:

Brian S. said...

The problem here is that John Doe would have absolutely no enforceable rights to the child, just obligations. Although he will play no part in the conception of the child and doesn't want anything to do with fatherhood, he would be responsible for the child until its 18th birthday by virtue of his address only. John Doe is seen by the Supreme Court as a walking wallet, and has every right to resent being treated as such.

Forcing the father to leave in order for a family to collect welfare benefits is what devastated many poor inner city black families to the point where single motherhood has now become a large part of their culture. Forcing John Doe from the home in order for him to not be financially responsible for someone else's child will only serve to make the home less stable.

Better to have no father at all than one who resents the hell out of you and wishes you were never born. I'm not clear as to whether this child has been born yet. If not the decision may mean that the child is never born and if it has been born this probably won't end well for anyone involved.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Brian, yes it is a disturbing story with no real happy ending. First of all, the child was born in 2005.


Regarding the fact that John Doe could be held financially responsible, the Star report had this skew on it:

As a result of the decision, if the couple were to split, Jane Doe would have the right to change her mind and seek financial support, while John Doe could change his mind and seek contact with the child. And the child himself could also potentially seek support from the non-custodial parent.

The adults could both waive those rights, however, if they wanted to stick with their contract.





Your last comment was:

Better to have no father at all than one who resents the hell out of you and wishes you were never born.

I agree. I can't imagine a situation like that. If the "father" totally ignores the kid or ends up hating him, that would be far worse than not having a man present in the home. It could be very damaging in an emotional sense at the very least.

This whole sad story started with a woman wanting to have her cake and eat it too - And she ends up angry that her "right to be a single mother" has been taken away.



Forcing the father to leave in order for a family to collect welfare benefits is what devastated many poor inner city black families to the point where single motherhood has now become a large part of their culture

I had no idea that that was part of the reason for so many one-parent families. I thought it was just lack of responsibility. Interesting.


Forcing John Doe from the home in order for him to not be financially responsible for someone else's child will only serve to make the home less stable.

That's the only thing I don't agree with of all of your comments. First of all I think it would be better for the child in this case (reasons stated above)that John move out. Jane has the option to stick with the original plan, or else to take John to court to help support the child financially and I'm sure she would win.

One big lesson here is to beware if you think that "shacking up" comes with no strings attached. In this case, it ended up having huge implications for all concerned; mainly due to some faulty assumptions.

Brian S. said...

I can never seem to get the HTML tags to work on Blogger so it makes it hard to respond.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been very anti-traditional family for quite some time, in fact it is because of the courts that we no longer even have a proper definition of what a family is. It is unrealistic to have the Courts go all out to destroy the traditional family and then expect people not want to, as you say, shack up together.

The Star is being very deceptive here. If the mother were to fall on hard times and require public assistance, the state would go after the father for child support and the mother would have no say in the matter.

There are many valid reasons not to want to be a father and plenty of men live with and contribute to families where they are not the father of or are legally responsible for the mothers children from a previous relationship. This does nothing to prevent single motherhood and will serve to assure that many children are brought up in poverty and without the benefit of a male role model.

Up until 1987 here in Ontario and in most of North America, the "no spouse in the House" rule meant that a father had to be absent in order for a family to collect welfare benefits. It had a devastating effect on poor families
and is one of the main reasons that gangs, crime and single motherhood are now so pervasive in poor neighborhoods.

John Doe more than likely has previous children who he is prevented from seeing but nonetheless he must pay child support for. I'm sure he was paying his share of rent and utilities and forcing him to leave only serves to make it more likely that the child is brought up in poverty and without the benefit of a male role model.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

it more likely that the child is brought up in poverty and without the benefit of a male role model.

Brian, great comments again. This is the only thing I still disagree with. I think a poor male role model is worse than none, but that's JMHO.

BTW, I can help you with italics in blogger if you like. Just drop my a line at the addy on my profile. It's not difficult.