A reading of the ruling, in its entirety, and knowledge of the facts as they unfolded in Saskatchewan is needed in order to see through the dangerous precedent set by Justice Smith. He ignored completely the possibility of a conspiracy to defraud the father of his child, yet claimed with much flourish that because the father had not been with the child, the child could not, should not, and would not, bond to him. Yet, everyone in Saskatchewan knows that the father did all he could to gain access to, and reclaim his son … whom the mother did not want.
Welcome to Saskatchewan. Welcome to Indian politics. Welcome to the cesspool of Sask. government departments seeded so heavily with the “progressive” class that they can conspire and triumph wherever, and however, they want where race politics are involved.
While there are legitimate arguments about the “best interests of the child” in this case, ruling that the biological father be deprived of visitation rights for the next year seems especially mean-spirited — not to mention illogical.
“My concern is Ian could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life.”
What then to make of visits from those constituting other “complicated adult relationships”, like the biological mother, grandparents and other maternal and custodial family relatives? Some villages are more equal than others, I guess.
Less than a month ago an Ontario court issued a ruling that named three people as parents of a single child. One wonders if “Adam” might have received a better outcome had he presented himself to the court as a gay man.
There’s a link to the ruling here.
“One wonders if “Adam” might have received a better outcome had he presented himself to the court as a gay man.”
Yup.
C’mon Kate don’t hide behind a stupid Cjunk quote; what do you have to say about it.
Besides judge smith avoided the race base debate in his judgement but Bloggers like yourself always dig up and stir this argument up every chance you get – seems irresponsible to me
C’mon Kate don’t hide behind a stupid Cjunk quote; what do you have to say about it.
Besides judge smith avoided the race base debate in his judgement but Bloggers like yourself always dig up and stir this argument up every chance you get – seems irresponsible to me
Being a purely fiction character Adam’s plight would be entirely up to the author.
cjunk said:
“everyone in Saskatchewan knows that the father did all he could to gain access to, and reclaim his son”
wow, great argument there…”everyone knows…” sounds a little fallacious to me.
and:
“Justice Smith…ignored completely the possibility of a conspiracy to defraud the father of his child”
a conspiracy to defraud the father??? time to stock up on more tinfoil. in these cases the sole critiria is the “best interests of the child”; is it so hard to believe in your little ignorant racist head that the best interests of the child are better served by First Nations parents than a white father…sheesh.
Cjunk has a comments box. I added my own. You’re free to respond to mine here, or to his, there. Frankly, I didn’t follow the story as closely as others. But, like many other items I link to, I thought it worthy of attention, or rebuttal, if you’re so inclined.
So, knock yourself out.
Before you get too bent out of shape, it’s worth noting that the story has received pretty extensive media coverage for weeks, including interviews with the father under his real name, before the courts ordered the ban.
So yes – everybody in Saskatchewan knows that part.
This is very disturbing.
The birthmother did not inform the father she was pregnant. She arranged for an adoption without his knowledge and therefore consent. When he discovered this, he was denied any rights to the child.
It is irrelevant race, previous history anything else.
Saskatchewan has given itself the right to take your child away because it wants to. It could happen to anyone.
This is so scary. As a new father I am amazed that we have given governments in Canada such powers. And we sit by.
enough
my problem is that you are the only one out there trying to stir up the race debate again. Judge Smith said absolutely nothing about race.
But you seem insistant to raise the ugly head of racism every chance you are able to.
If you really want to be honest with your readers you should make clear why are insistant to play the race card in your debates
This blog is becoming all Saskatchewan all the time.
It would seem the best that province can do is simply close down and all you good folk move to Alberta ans BC.
Otherwise the continued whining about the commies and the wheat board are just boring.
It’s the same reason I don’t read the local rags … if I want to know what’s going on at the SPCA I will simply give them a call..
Sorry Kate,
My wife had an Indian/white foster child in her care from the ages 10 to 14; my wife did wonders with this girl, whose mother was white and wanted very little to do with her daughter. The band of the father sued for custody and won, and this girl was taken out of my wife’s home were she was treated like her own daughters, and sent to a reserve she had never been to, so she could be raised a Indian, even though she had had no Indian input in her life until this time as her father left shortly after she was born. I believe this ex foster girl of ours is now selling herself downtown Vancouver.
Judge Smith could not, ever, acknowledge that race had anything to do with this, but the mechanics of his ruling point specifically to just that:
A) Mother and father, in the least, are both equally checkered in their past.
B) Mother doesn’t want child; father does; and makes great effort to claim and parent the child
C)Despite being notified, the hospital and child agencies whisk the child away without contacting the father. This could not be done without collusion within government departments. And, there is evidence that a relative, well placed within Indian government, was instrumental in this.
D) Judge Smith denies father all access to the child.
E) Judge Smith gives very generous access to the mother and her family, with “specific” reference to heritage and their involvement with First Nations.
The mechanics of the decision are as close as you could possibly get to race based bias in a judgment without the judge actually coming out and saying so. This case has been extensively covered in Saskatchewan, as Kate noted, and many interviews and such have been given.
If it’s not race-based in it’s bias, then it’s still a travesty in its inequitable treatment of the father.
On the other hand, the mother, if she had kept the child, and not told the father, could have sued him for child support, many years later, and he would have to pay.
The fact that this young man tried to take responsibility for
his actions is comendable.
Is this not what we want men to do?
I think this is discimination pure and simple ( not race )
Ontario Gay man can gets not only visitation rights but two gay mom’s as well for his child…
Sask straight man DENIED best interest of child….
Mary T: That may still happen, as the custodial parents are not adoptive parents and mommy can likely claim back her child any time with their agreement; and then of course chase daddy.
The fact that this young man tried to take responsibility for
his actions is comendable.
Is this not what we want men to do?
I think this is discimination pure and simple ( not race )
Ontario Gay man can gets not only visitation rights but two gay mom’s as well for his child…
Sask straight man DENIED best interest of child….
Hey John – before you start whining about my choice of content (which is selected on the basis of what I find interesting), click the Sitemeter traffic stats and you’ll discover the local-national-international ratio in content is pretty close to that of my readership.
🙂
“My concern is Ian could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life.”
Now would he I wonder, use that argument in the case of a polygamous mixed gender marriage?
If he needs a place to hide out when he scoops his own kid ill help out.
More and more I see the revolution getting closer and closer.
Alan, that’s pretty damn sad what you are sayin. I was not given a gift of a daughter, but I think I know what it would feel like.
Why do Fathers have no rights but are saddled with the financial responsibilities?
Why do women have all the rights but no responsibilities?
In the early stages of a childs developement, they could care less about “the complex adult relationships”, unless of course they are adversarial and the child is exposed to the pathological emotions of the adults. Being exposed to a loving adult, father or not, can only be beneficial to a child, and the earlier that exposure, the better.
Why can’t a baby in Sask have 2 daddys and one mother. Gender bias, or the judge missed the Ont ruling re 2 mothers and one father.
Man, that is going to be one ANGRY kid when he grows up! He’ll hear about what happened one way or another and by God everyone will have to duck and cover if he reacts anything like how I imagine myself would.
It was reported here in southern Alberta that in fact the foster parents did ask that the father provide child support. I dont know what the judge said to that, if its true. But the audacity of the foster parents to even ask, boggles the mind.
MikeP: Not only that, but the foster parents found out very early on that the father was seeking to take custody of his child; they blocked his attempts as best they could.
Now, think about it. You are a foster parent who is given an infant to care for, then you discover that the father wants to take full responsibility for the child … what do you do? … Stall and attempt to block all access by the father, or try to reunite the father with the child and at least give him generous access?
Having read the judgement, I’m not as categorical as several of the commentors here. The “race” thing seems to have played little, if any, significant role in the judge’s final decision. The biological dad’s track record and existing circumstances would raise several alarm bells in my mind. Life is neither fair nor predictable but if I were a betting man and assuming that the judicial summation is an accurate representation of the circumstances, I’d say the child’s chances for the future are better in the adoptive home than with the biological father, sad as that may be.
“the judicial summation is an accurate representation” is pretty far fetched.
“The “race” thing seems to have played little, if any, significant role in the judge’s final decision.” On paper. The real racism (as well as a lot of other words like biased and prejudiced amd…)practiced by the judiciary in this country is revolting.
Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil have tonnes of viewers and that does not stop those shows from being pure dreck. It just means the world is full of gullible idiots. Traffic isn’t everything. Oh the irony of me posting such a thing!
The way this turned out is a shame and I feel sorry for the dad. Treating dads like little more than paychecks is wrong, wrong, wrong! I agree with SDA (for once) and I am a little taken aback by this. Has the world gone crazy?
I don’t think that dads should be required to pay child support. I think child support should be entirely voluntary. I guess my views are colored by the fact that mybabydaddy is a worthless bum whose money I have no use for or some shizza.
The ruling of “familial calm” is so much bullshit. No child is going to be damaged by having more people to look after and love him. The judge is clearly stupid and biased although I am not sure what to think of the race angle.
Even the americans got it right with fathers rights in the Elian Gonzales case. Elian would have had a far better life with all the Western comforts, but the yanks got it right and returned Elian to his rightful parent… His father in Cuba. But Sasks. social engineers interfere again, Welcome to Saskatchwan where we have more social engineers per capita than any other spot on the earth.
The mother viewed the child as her “property” to allocate as she pleased. This property view is reinforced by a Canadian woman’s right to kill her unborn child. It’s pretty hard to put the brakes on self-will simply because the child has emerged from the womb and accept that the rights of others (such as the father) must be respected. Also, since pro-abortionists argue that when a woman aborts she is acting in the best interests of the child (economic deprivation, immature mother, etc.), presumably they would argue that the mother likewise uniquely knows best whom to give the child to, should the child be brought to birth.
All of these women’s rights, however, are nicely balanced in Canadian law by the legal responsibility men bear to pay child support if the women decides to carry the child to term.
It’s all about balance and fairness.
After reading the judgement, the judge makes it clear that there is a lot of case law which precludes a father from having rights when the adoptive parents can provide a better situation. I wonder though, if “Adam” had attacked the custodial agreement and not contested his parental rights if he might have gotten further. Specifically:
AND WHEREAS the biological father of the child is not
known, and no person has acknowledged paternity, nor
supported or maintained Rose during her pregnancy, nor
acknowledged responsibility for the unborn child, nor
indicated an intention to seek custody of or access to the
said child;
One of the maternal extended family had an idea that he might have been the father, and he and “Ruth” had obviously discussed taking responsibility for the child at birth beforehand if he commenced legal action within a week of the birth. That kind of puts that paragraph into into dispute.
Just a thought.
I went through a custody battle in AB.that in some ways was similar to this one. I am white,my woman was native. She had 2 children who we attempted to get custody .We had temporary custody because Dad was unable to take care of himself let alone 2 kids. We applied for full custody and was told by native child services of her band that there would be no problem. She attended school full-time,I have had the same gov’t job for 12 years at that time. Dad has an extensive history of petty crime and alcohol abuse. On the day of the hearing,Dad showed up in court,in a suit,sober. The band had put him through his third rehab. In court he was portrayed as a changed man who loved his children.He won custody over the natural mother and myself. Outside court we were told by the caseworker,off the record of course,that as long as my woman lived with a white man she would never be granted custody if the dad objected.Last I heard the oldest who would be now 16 has had her first child. The other may be still living in foster care as Dad was sober for only a few months.We are no longer a couple,this decision by the court drove a wedge between us. Also in Alberta,a native child cannot be adopted without the permission of the band.The bands do not give permission unless the adoptive parents are native or the child is severely disabled. It is all so wrong and so sad.