• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Poor kid

Red Robin

Well-known member
Case believed to be first in Canada to give a child three legal parents

January 03, 2007
Tim Lai
Staff Reporter

Ontario's highest court has given legal parental status to the lesbian partner of a biological mother, essentially giving a young boy three parents.

The case is believed to be the first in Canada in which a child has more than two legal parents, said Peter Jervis, a lawyer for the partner. He said while there have been birth-registry cases in which lesbian couples sought parentage of their children, the fathers in those cases were not active or were unknown due to sperm donations.

In this case, the biological father, a friend of the lesbian couple, remains involved in the 5-year-old boy's life at the request of the two women. The father would have lost his parental rights if the lesbian partner had been able to adopt the boy under Ontario law.

The lesbian partner brought the case against the biological mother and father, seeking a declaration for parentage. They fully supported the legal action.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruling released yesterday overturns a 2003 Superior Court of Justice decision not to give the female partner legal status as the child's mother. The judge said the court did not have jurisdiction to grant the title.

Justice Marc Rosenberg, writing on behalf of Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse, found that due to a gap in legislation, the court in this case can exercise its "parens patriae" – the legal term for the state to act as the guardian for a minor – in declaring the partner a mother.

"Advances in our appreciation of the value of other types of relationships and in the science of reproductive technology have created gaps in the (Children's Law Reform Act's) legislative scheme," Rosenberg wrote. "Because of these changes, the parents of a child can be two women or two men."

The sudden death of the biological mother was the couple's main reason in asking for legal status, the court noted. If the woman did not receive the legal rights before her partner died, she would not be able to make decisions on behalf of their son.

"It's very good news for her, for her son and for her family," Jervis said. "She's been the mom of this child since he was born, but this grants legal recognition to her status."

Jervis said he was unable to reach the family over the phone, but he wrote an email with the subject line, "Congratulations, you're a mom."

Like any case at this level, it could create a precedent, he said. "I strongly suspect that if another case like this came forward, there would be a similar request for the courts to exercise its jurisdiction (of parens patriae)."

The "three-parents case" drew criticism from the Alliance for Marriage and Family. The umbrella group – comprising Focus on the Family, the Catholic Civil Rights League, REAL Women of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Christian Legal Fellowship – was an intervener in the case and opposed the declaration, saying it would go against the traditional family unit.

"This ruling concerns us," said David Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, an organization started by Focus on the Family. "What about grandparents? If there's a divorce and a remarrying, how many parents do we get? Those are questions that are unanswered at this point."

Quist said it's too early to say whether the alliance will appeal the ruling, but he added there may be a need to call a royal commission on the future of the family.

"What we do know from social-science research right now is that children raised by their married biological mom and dad do best, but we also know that's not a fact of life for a lot of kids out there," he said. "Let's put in (some policy) that supports the outcomes for the children the best we can."
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.


Remember the Conservative government is also a minority and those "Libs and NDP and Bloc" could all bring it down.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.

First off no government should be involved in moral issues..If the issue at hand is in need of a legal decision,then the law or government must decide the issues under it's jurisprudence.After that decision is made,they then take the steps to implement said issue or quash said issue.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Mrs.Greg said:
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.

First off no government should be involved in moral issues..If the issue at hand is in need of a legal decision,then the law or government must decide the issues under it's jurisprudence.After that decision is made,they then take the steps to implement said issue or quash said issue.
:lol2: WOW
 

Cal

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
nonothing said:
Mrs.Greg said:
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.

First off no government should be involved in moral issues..If the issue at hand is in need of a legal decision,then the law or government must decide the issues under it's jurisprudence.After that decision is made,they then take the steps to implement said issue or quash said issue.
:lol2: WOW
Uhhh...wouldn't putting a minor in the custody of a crackhead, hooker, thief, or molestor be a moral issue?
 

memanpa

Well-known member
First off no government should be involved in moral issues..If the issue at hand is in need of a legal decision,then the law or government must decide the issues under it's jurisprudence.After that decision is made,they then take the steps to implement said issue or quash said issue.[/quote]:lol2: WOW[/quote]Uhhh...wouldn't putting a minor in the custody of a crackhead, hooker, thief, or molestor be a moral issue?[/quote]

wait a minute Cal. stop and think before you make a statement like that to a liberal! you know that is using something called commen sense which no no lacks as do most of the liberals.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Mrs.Greg said:
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.

First off no government should be involved in moral issues..If the issue at hand is in need of a legal decision,then the law or government must decide the issues under it's jurisprudence.After that decision is made,they then take the steps to implement said issue or quash said issue.
First off....your just an idiot that doesn't deserve a or is it an answer to this stupid post you just made,yup I'm proad to share the same country as you :roll: :roll: :roll: :?
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
nonothing said:
Mrs.Greg said:
I read this yesterday...it really bothers me that Canada is becoming more and more lenient on all these moral issues,.....its to the point if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything. We have a really conservative government and Prime minister that I hope will be able to bring us back to some sence of disipline.

First off no government should be involved in moral issues..If the issue at hand is in need of a legal decision,then the law or government must decide the issues under it's jurisprudence.After that decision is made,they then take the steps to implement said issue or quash said issue.
First off....your just an idiot that doesn't deserve a or is it an answer to this stupid post you just made,yup I'm proad to share the same country as you :roll: :roll: :roll: :?

Most of you people bitch about the moral values of your leaders and then bitch when it is suggested that government steer clear of moral decisions...I believe Church and State should be separate....because each person's moral portfolio is not the same as another's who may not share the same moral ideals

Any one who is accused or convicted of any crime should,under law,not be allowed to have the same responsibilities given to those that do not break the law..You can base the laws on moral issues that is fine but they must be upheld..I said the government must decide under its jurisprudence,I never suggest giving criminals anything but what the law commands.Some people think long term prison sentences are immoral,are you ok with that?.....morality is an plethora of opinions..where as law is the rule.

I never called anyone an idiot or stupid.I find the lack of respect here for holding a different opinion.or for just looking outside the box for answer saddening....Mrs. Greg, I look at some of life's issues differently then you.. I do however have respect for you as you have a chosen side and stand up for your opinions..I feel bad that your anger towards me leaks out in name calling....I never thought you needed to stoop to that level,I am sorry i bring that ugliness out in you......
 

Cal

Well-known member
Same old boohoo crybaby bunch of **** all over again, just happens to be Mrs. Greg's turn this time. Give it a friggin' rest nono. Or if you choose to temporarily leave again...keep it to yourself.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Cal said:
Same old boohoo crybaby bunch of s*** all over again, just happens to be Mrs. Greg's turn this time. Give it a friggin' rest nono. Or if you choose to temporarily leave again...keep it to yourself.

Why even bother with people like you cal.. :?
 

memanpa

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Cal said:
Same old boohoo crybaby bunch of s*** all over again, just happens to be Mrs. Greg's turn this time. Give it a friggin' rest nono. Or if you choose to temporarily leave again...keep it to yourself.

Why even bother with people like you cal.. :?

looks like Cal and Mrs. Greg hit a tender spot on ole "no it all's" tail

Cal you made an excellent suggestion when you said give it a rest no no
 

nonothing

Well-known member
memanpa said:
nonothing said:
Cal said:
Same old boohoo crybaby bunch of s*** all over again, just happens to be Mrs. Greg's turn this time. Give it a friggin' rest nono. Or if you choose to temporarily leave again...keep it to yourself.

Why even bother with people like you cal.. :?

looks like Cal and Mrs. Greg hit a tender spot on ole "no it all's" tail

Cal you made an excellent suggestion when you said give it a rest no no

Another wannabe packster.....pucker up more memanpa,your almost there....what a joke you are...... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

memanpa

Well-known member
nonothing said:
memanpa said:
nonothing said:
Why even bother with people like you cal.. :?

looks like Cal and Mrs. Greg hit a tender spot on ole "no it all's" tail

Cal you made an excellent suggestion when you said give it a rest no no

Another wannabe packster.....pucker up more memanpa,your almost there....what a joke you are...... :lol: :lol: :lol:

what ever i am NONO i am and always will be better than you, even on my very worst day! :D :D :D :D

you cannot even pull off a decent insult, go pull your head out of kaka's dark brown area, your eyes are clouded and are brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D
 

nonothing

Well-known member
memanpa said:
nonothing said:
memanpa said:
looks like Cal and Mrs. Greg hit a tender spot on ole "no it all's" tail

Cal you made an excellent suggestion when you said give it a rest no no

Another wannabe packster.....pucker up more memanpa,your almost there....what a joke you are...... :lol: :lol: :lol:

what ever i am NONO i am and always will be better than you, even on my very worst day! :D :D :D :D

you cannot even pull off a decent insult, go pull your head out of kaka's dark brown area, your eyes are clouded and are brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

Yes you are so much better then me even though there are two requirements to being a smart ass, but don't worry, you got the second part down pat. You may not realize this but your incompetence is an inspiration to morons everywhere.Some of your comments you make on here remind me of the southern most portion of a northern bound horse..I also think anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice.I am sure they said that with a smile ..lol..well Mr. Memanpa i well leave you with this.....You are a difficult man to forget, but well worth the effort..enjoy your day
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
MM&P seems to have an ' anal fetish'......wonder if he/she/it ( get it :lol: ) is ' registered' anywhere?
That's over the line if you're suggesting he's a sex offender. You got any proof of that?
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
kolanuraven said:
MM&P seems to have an ' anal fetish'......wonder if he/she/it ( get it :lol: ) is ' registered' anywhere?
That's over the line if you're suggesting he's a sex offender. You got any proof of that?


After everything that memanpa has said to call ANYTING over the line hilarious.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
MM&P seems to have an ' anal fetish'......wonder if he/she/it ( get it :lol: ) is ' registered' anywhere?

i was going to respond to this but figured coming from her it says enough to make her look even more like the village idiot!!
 
Top