Jane Doe and John Doe live in Calgary as common- law partners. She wanted to have a child. He did not. So she sought a sperm donor and the child was born in August, 2005. The couple wrote a contract clearing John Doe of any legal responsibility for the child and they went to court to make sure their agreement was legal.
At every level the Alberta courts rejected their agreement. Instead the courts focussed on the rights of the child and concluded that John Doe, by choosing to remain in a live-in relationship with the child’s mother, could not dodge parental responsilities toward a child lving under the same roof. Last week the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Many observers condemned the courts for failing to side with single mothers in their quest to be free of state interference in deciding whether to parent on their own.
Others sharply disagreed. They argued the child’s rights trump the mother’s rights. They say it is simply unfair for a child to grwo up in a home where there is a man present who does not intend to be ther father.
Where do you come down?