 Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae  "As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a positive presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role."
I wish the article had gone into some detail regarding this. | I found some more info.
Saskatoon dad
Smith did not reach his conclusions based on whether Hendricks was actually Ian's biological father -- DNA proved that -- but on what is best for the child. This is not the first time the courts have ruled this way. The law has been evolving in this direction for years, and the judge cited a number of precedents for his decision, including one at the Supreme Court. His conclusions are not surprising, given Hendricks' background. Hendricks' family has a history of alcoholism and he has had his own struggles with alcohol. He quit school after Grade 8 and has struggled to make a living ever since, bouncing from the construction industry to a series of odd jobs to a failed wedding business. He declared bankruptcy in 2002 and now operates a courier business, although he hasn't paid income tax for three years. He is married at the moment, but is trying to get a divorce so he can marry his current partner, "Ruth." To date, none of his numerous relationships have lasted more than three years. All have ended, as the judge put it, "somewhere between badly and very badly." Oh, and he also has a 20-year-old daughter that he put up for adoption at the time of birth.
Although Saskatchewan media reports suggested a court ruling giving custody of an infant two parents other than the biological father was either incorrect or improper given societal values, family law practitioners say the judge 's decision accurately reflects Canadian case law. In Hendricks v. Swan [2007] S.J. No.30, a biological mother signed a custody agreement placing her baby in the care of a third party family without the consent of the biological father. Saskatchewan Court of Queen 's Bench Justice Shawn Smith ruled that the biological father was capable of providing a positive adult presence in the baby 's life, but not in a parental role, and the child 's best interests were served by granting custody to the third party family. He also ordered a one-year period of (familial calm ) to facilitate bonding and attachment of the child, allowing the biological father to resume access again only after one year, unless other wise agreed by the parties. Justice Smith noted the case law instructs that : (i) The paramount consideration is the best interest of the child; (ii) Blood ties are a factor to be considered in determining the best interest of the child but they are to be considered for the point of view of the significance to the child, rather then the significance to the biological parents; (iii) The question must be asked which environment can best provide for the health, emotional well-being education, training, intellectual, economic and psychological needs of the child; (iv) The Court must consider uncertainties associated with transferring custody of a child from a known situation of security and stability to a situation with many unknowns. In the case of an infant, the court must consider the potential harm to a child in disrupting a attachments that have developed or are in the advanced stages of formation . Bother not the cat. For they are sneaky and will piss on thy keyboard. |