Parental Rights

Here's an interesting case brought before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench; that of a 'biological' father who has sought custody of the infant whom the biological mother signed over to the care of a responsible adoptive couple. The question must be what constitutes parenthood, a biological fact of birth, or the willingness of either biological or adoptive parents to demonstrate parenthood to the highest ideal of care and love for a child?

The act of procreation is one of nature's wonders, but a natural act that just about anyone can reproduce. Reproducing does not decree successful parenthood. It is a massive investment of time, energy, dedication and emotional involvement. Not all are capable of exerting themselves to this degree and to this purpose. The biological father of the child in question assumed that biology equals parenthood and it does not.

And the results of this particular case, ruled against the biological father, are telling in and of themselves. A self-involved individual who practised serial monogamy, never quite ready to settle into a permanent relationship, discovers that one of his ex-girlfriends became pregnant and delivered a child. Realizing she was unprepared for parenthood she took steps to ensure her child would have a promising future with adoptive parents.

The biological father decides this is his child and he wishes to raise the child, with a new girlfriend. He had a previous child, a girl, years earlier with yet another girlfriend and that child was placed for adoption, presumably with little protest by the biological father. A succession of unsuccessful relationships, including a failed marriage, has dogged this man's personal life, along with failed business ventures.

The judge who presided over the case ruled that the custodial parents, a mature and well educated couple, one of whom stays at home looking after the child offered the best opportunity for the child's future and overall well-being. Well done, Justice Shawn Smith.

This case has echoes of one with interesting parallels recently in the news, where a mature and educated woman decided she wanted to bear children and began taking fertility treatments to that end. She underwent a difficult pregnancy and birth and came out of the experience convinced she would be unable to care for the twins she had given birth to.

Even before the birth she took the initiative to find surrogate parents for her children. She was eager to give them into the care of a suitable adoptive pair who could offer a good life for her children. She had legal advice in an adoption lawyer whose services she obtained and she fully understood the finality of her decision.

The two children, now infants, a boy and a girl, have been well looked after and loved by their adoptive parents. Those same adoptive parents who generously agreed to allow the biological mother visiting rights, granting her permission to see the children on her own for prolonged periods of time.

The birth mother developed a desire to have her children restored to her, and she took it upon herself to kidnap them, running away with them to another country. An alert was put out for the abducted children and their mother, and their whereabouts were discovered roughly a week after the children's disappearance. They were restored to the care of their adoptive parents.

The birth mother has been apprehended, incarcerated and is awaiting trial on abduction charges. She remains determined and adamant that the procedure whereby her children were adopted was flawed, that she changed her mind very soon after the legal adoption, that it is in her children's best interests to be restored to her, to enable her to raise them.

Oddly enough, in both instances there are groups of supporters who claim that the best interests of the children in question are being overlooked; that it is always in the best interests of children to be with and raised by their biological parents. Experience proves otherwise. Outraged groups claiming justice has been subverted in these cases are agitating for their overturn.

Oddly enough, the best interests of the children is rarely uppermost in the minds of biological parents who for their own selfish reasons retract originally responsible decisions in favour of their own satisfactions.