no. 406
Supreme Court won't hear 'single mother by choice' case
Common-law wife sought sole legal responsibility for child from sperm donor
Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, July 13, 2007
© The
Excerpts:
“
A three-judge panel, by convention, did not give reasons for refusing to grant leave to appeal in the closely watched case of Jane Doe, which has raised questions about parental freedoms when stacked against the rights of the child.
Jane Doe, described in court documents as a
The couple agreed to write a contract clearing John Doe of any legal responsibility but, before signing the deal, they decided to go to court to see if it was legally sound under
….
“The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to reject the case effectively upholds a ruling last winter in the Alberta Court of Appeal.
The
….
“The Doe case has spawned numerous opinion articles in newspapers, some of which condemned the
Andrea Mrozek, a spokeswoman for the Ottawa-based
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
2 comments:
My reaction...what kind of mother is Jane Doe if she knows that John Doe doesn't want children and she continues her relationship w/him? It doesn't sound like she is taking the most important part of the equation into considerat...THE CHILD!! It makes me question the final psychological issues for that child.
After five minutes' consideration, I have to agree with the court. Although I also agree with those saying, "What kind of relationship is that?"
This is a good test case of the concept that social parenting trumps gene donation. Also, we've decided that fathers can't wiggle out of things just because the pregnancy is accidental rather than planned, even if the woman planned it. The court's decision is in line with both principles. What other decision could they make?
Now, if the couple splits and the mother doesn't want to ask for any support from the father (her defacto husband) that's a personal choice.
Bea
Post a Comment