(Adam and Ruth) ask for help (PDF File)
The battle for baby 'Ian' is on...
Kris Titus dispels myths
The List Goes On And On (PDF File)
Is There No Justice Out There For A Biological Father?
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX is being shafted, AGAIN
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX wants to be Dad
Is There No Justice Out There For A Biological Father?
Unfair Bizarre Case
I am a married mother
Dear Madame Minister
Good morning Mr. Calvert
E-Mailed to Saskatchewan Minister of Justice Frank Quennell
Minister's Responce to Darla's E-mail
Darla's Response to the Minister Frank Quennell
Letter to the Editor of the Star Phoenix February 02, 2006
It's Time We Stepped Up For A Father's Rights
Race Politics Shuts out Dad
xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx has his day in court
Money will never be Love.
2nd Letter from Child and Family Services
2007 Race Reason
Fathers and Men's Rights Activist
Ottawa, Ontario Phone: (613) 237-1320 ext 2438 email@example.com
?For The Children ?
"A FATHER FIGHTS FOR HIS SON"
The battle for baby 'Ian' is on...
Saskatoon man who lost high profile custody battle with a Prince Albert couple over his biological son "Ian" has mounted an appeal
It is with much pleasure that I can confirm and report on this day the 1st March 2007 that as per various national news agency reports our brother "Adam" of
Sakatoon, Saskatchewan has been able to mount an appeal of the earlier January 29th decision of Justice R.S. Smith which granted full custody of Adam's
biological child "Ian" to a foster couple and stripped "Adam" and his fiancee Ruth of all visitation rights.
'Adam' has retained Regina lawyer Brad Hunter of Hunter-Miller Barristers and Solicitors to mount the appeal. You can email Brad here to voice encouragement
and support: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
A full chronological history of this case can be seen here: http://www.saskatoondad.com/main.html
The Canadian Fathers and Men's Rights movement is in full support of "Adam" and his quest to be a Father and a Parent to his natural son. We have
symbolically "adopted" "baby Ian" as our own 'mascot' figure. He is a symbol of the chidren we have all lost to the tyranny of Canadian family law.
A short recall and some pertinent information in the case at hand:
Last month Justice Smith of Saskatchewan ruled that an adoptive Prince Albert couple had the legal right to raise the nine-month-old biological son of "Adam" .
The judge also ruled that Adam cannot see his son for one year to allow "bonding" with the adoptive parents. Thr judge actually stated that the father is "capable
of providing a positive adult presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role." .
The story began when 'Adam' ended his 2006 relationship with the "Ian's" mother. He was at that time completely unaware of the mothers pregnancy until a few
days before the baby was born.
In April 2006 'Adam' was 'tipped off' that the woman was pregnant and that the child was being offered for adoption without his knowledge, participation and
permission. He was told that he had to "move fast" because an adoptive couple had already been selected to hand the baby to and that money for this
transaction had changed hands. The baby's mother is an admitted drug abuser and there were fears that the baby might be physically affected.
'Adam' asked the mother if the rumours were true and she confirned that she was pregnant but that he was not the father. She told him in effect to mind his own
business. However Adam was told by the baby's mother that he (Adam) was indeed the father of the baby.
In adoption documentation the mother claimed that the identity of the biological father was not known. Yet the mother has also sworn in an affidavit that she
knew Rick was the Father right from the beginning.
Despite Adams immediate reaction to what he had heard the baby boy was handed over to the adoptove parents in what has become known as the "parking lot
adoption" Since his birth, baby Ian has been raised by the adoptive couple and the natural biological father has been cut out of his son's life.
The lawyer for the adoptive cople has been caught lying when he told a national media audience that he had not asked Rick for child support for baby "Ian". In a
letter of October 11, 2006 the lawyer clearly states otherwise.
In April 2006 Adam's fiancee Ruth contacted a social worker at Royal University Hospital to voice concerns. She was told by the social worker that the baby
would be tested for drugs, as the mother was identified as a possible drug user. She was further told that if the test came back positive that child protective
services would be called and the child would not be allowed to leave the hospital until an investigation was undertaken. This would include paternity testing.
Just two days after this contact was made a "custody and guardianship agreement" was signed between the baby's mother and the adoptive couple. Adam and
Ruth were completely unaware of the agreement at the time.
A message to all supporters from "Adam" and his Fiancee Ruth
News feature of 28th February from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix announcing the appeal
You can email "Adam" with comments, suggestions and notes of support and encourgament here: email@example.com
Donations for "Adam" can be made to help him fight for his son and to defray costs. Details of where to donate can be found here:
http://www.saskatoondad.com/donations.html FACT has kindly offered to be part of the donation process (see website here)
For 'OUR' baby 'Brekker'
We are Fighting for You and your Dad little one...
Hang in there Bud ! !
Kris Titus dispels myths
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer and should not be considered to be accepted by Adam or Ruth.
From the Front Line
Dispelling Myths. What I know to be true, and not true
By Kris Titus - Former Vice President, Fathers 4 Justice Canada
The media is fickle. The bits of information you receive through the media is just that, BITS of information. I would like to provide you
with a full image of the man I know, named Adam, father of Baby B, otherwise known as Ian.
There were a lot of terrible things reported about this dad during the past 6 months of media coverage. Let's dispel a lot of those
misconceptions and myths surrounding him, the Turners, and the trial.
"He's an alcoholic"
What does that mean exactly?
I know people who have not touched a drop of alcohol for 30 years and they still call themselves an alcoholic.
I spent two very intense weeks with Adam, his fiancé and his extended family whereby we were together constantly. Not once, even in
this man's deepest, darkest fight of his life, did Adam ever even mention or consider having a drink.
Perhaps someone should ask the new 'legal' grandfather of baby B if he could say the same. If being exposed to alcohol is a barrier to
being a good parent, perhaps the judge should have sat where I did during the trial where you could not help but smell the recent
activities of the new grandfather.
" He lives his life fast and loose".
DID, DID lead his life fast and loose.
Who can actually say at what point someone else's life and welfare become more important than your own? With Adam it could be any
number of 'revelations' he has had.
Losing his father.
Meeting the woman he knows he loves more than any other.
Finding out he was going to be a father.
No matter when the transformation happened, it sure happened. Adam would make a stunning father. His nieces and nephew love him as
if he is bigger than life itself. Again, during the extreme strain of his trial, it was Adam cheering everyone else up. Doing a made up
cheerleading routine that had his nieces in stitches and his mother grinning from ear to ear.
" He is mentally slow and cannot do more than one thing at a time."
Yes, they actually said that! Did you know that your ability to multitask was part of determining your fitness as a parent?
Here's where it gets really funny. In the time I have spent with Adam and his family, I have watched him run several phone lines at once
for his courier business, while doing computer work, while also holding a very involved and indepth conversation with him. Adam is more
than able of doing more than one thing at a time, and do them well!
( PS, in comparison with the previous myth that he lives FAST and loose, and this comment that he is SLOW, it seems to me that there
is a certain pace expected to be a good parent, would someone mind sharing that pace with me when they figure it out?)
" He has never had a long term committed relationship"
Again, the point is?
Just because someone is still together after 10 years does not guarantee they have a rock solid, supportive and loving relationship.
Day after day Adam and Ruth were there for each other, side by side.
And what of the new parents to Baby Brekker? Well, I thought it was nice when the new dad finally decided to show up and sit with (
not necessarily a very supportive 'sitting with' ) his wife for the last two days of court. His absence at what should have been one of the
most important events in his life was 'palpable'.
" He smokes"
Again, the point is?
The new Dad smokes, like a chimney. So does his Dad.
Nuff said, moving on.
" He likes vulnerable women"
I may get in trouble for this one, though it is not so much a 'character' assessment of Saskatchewan as an assessment made on
observation and study. Saskatchewan is not known to be the most 'affluential' of provinces. There is a chronically low education rate and
high rate of alcoholism and crime. Considering Adam's own educational background and his life as a race car driver, I would honestly
suggest that in his hometown, there are not many women who are NOT vulnerable in Saskatoon and the pool to choose women from is
small and narrow.
" He had to claim bankruptcy and has had several jobs"
I don't know about all of you, but I know that I am only 33 years old and have changed jobs at least 5 times since I started working. I
have also had economic hardships that forced us to claim bankruptcy. Based on the standards set by Justice Smith, there are very few
people who should actually have custody of their children. I've said it once and I will say it again, look out all you welfare mom's! They're
coming to take your kids!
" He was hospitalized for depression"
Depression is one of the fastest growing medical conditions there is.
" He is emotionally fragile"
. "He has shown grit and determination in pursuit of custody for his son, where many would have
faltered, he has not."
You must be wondering about these two. Yes, they were said BY the same person ABOUT the same person. The message is quite simple
actually, men are supposed to be more emotionally attached and sensitive to their families but they are not supposed to show any
emotion or else they can be considered "emotional" or "fragile". They are also not supposed to be aggressive in any way but grit and
determination are good qualities, just not good enough to make you a good dad. Everyone got that? I know, it's as clear as mud
"Her journey has endured many challenges"
Ruth has had a tough life as was witnessed in her testimony on the stand and her incredible sharing of her past life with me. I agree
that her past 'struggles' are better characterized as 'challenges'. But I also agree that Adam's past 'burdens' should also be seen as
'challenges'. They BOTH have my utmost admiration and respect for overcoming their previous life challenges and facing this new one,
(Sorry, I had to put this one in, I felt it was a 'glaring' example of how we view men and women differently)
>"Lynda believes that this is the first step in an adoption"
I have a few problems with this one. First of all, Lynda has actively participated in assessments and in family court cases, so I have a
hard time believing she does not know what is actually needed for a formal adoption.
Secondly, it was noted in Justice Smith's ruling that although the Care and Custody Agreement appeared to be drafted by a lawyer, yet
he also recognized there was no legal identification and no evidence either Lynda or Rose had obtained independent legal advice.
Now, stay with me here, IF she had no legal advice, how would she KNOW that the Care and Custody Agreement was the first step in an
Now still stay with me here, WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING HAVING SOMEONE LIKE LYNDA WHO APPEARS TO THE COURT TO
NOT KNOW THE FAMILY LAWS DOING FAMILY LAW CASES AND CUSTODY ASSESSMENTS?
There's more than one fish that stinks here.
The best interests of the child
I have to put in my two cents on this one.
The children's law act sets out criteria for the best interests of the child, in brief here's how it compares to Adam and Ian:
Section 8(a)(i)"the quality of the relationship that the child has with the person who is seeking custody and any other person who
may have a close connection with the child" Let us not forget that Adam and Ruth had more than a few visits with baby Ian , who I
call Baby B. Baby B was always content, happy, excited to see his dad and never acted strange. There was a connection there, the
strength and value of which the courts have seriously underestimated. Let's look just for a second at adopted children and the rights
that they have in seeking out their natural parent. Why do they have those rights now? BECAUSE SO MANY ADOPTED CHILDREN
FEEL AN INSATIABLE NEED TO SEEK OUT THEIR BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION.
Make no mistake, Baby B is going to come looking for Daddy one day, and when he does he will be owed a lifetime of missing his Dad.
Section 8(a)(ii)"the personality, care, and emotional needs of the child" Again, Adam is best to know, understand, and provide these
for his son. Will the Turners be able to tell him he's not abnormal because he has a crooked toe? Will they be able to tell him that it's a
family trait going back generations and he should be proud that it identifies him as a member of his family? Will the Turners know that
he bites his lips when he's nervous because it's something his dad does? Will the Turners know, understand, and support Baby B's future
quest to be a race car driver because it was in his Dad's blood? You cannot argue with biology people! Children are one half their natural,
biological parents. They share our characteristics, our traits, our physical disposition. By the way, you only have to LOOK at Baby B to
know he's Adam's child. He's the spitting image of his Daddy.
Section 8(a)(iii)"the physical, psychological, social and economic NEEDS ( emphasis added) of the child" This is very important
people and what allows single welfare mom's to keep their children. As parents, we are responsible for providing for the needs of our
children. I think we all accept that.
Am I responsible however to raise my child on a farm and make an income of $100,000 a year? Am I responsible for taking my child to
art shows or for sending him to school in the country? NO. NO NO. IF that was the standard of providing for our children's needs then
****% of our population who makes under $100,000 per year, and ***% of our population who live in apartment buildings, and ***% of
our population who hates art would all of a sudden be discluded as being good parents! THIS IS NOT A JOKE PEOPLE. YOU REALLY
NEED TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
Section 8(a)(iv)"the capacity of the person who is seeking custody to act as legal custodian of the child". Adam is his biological
Moving on again.
Section 8(a)(v)"The home environment proposed to be provided for the child". Same arguments as above for the most part, but even
further to that, I have my own personal observations to add. Ruth and Adam live in a really sweet little apartment. Baby B's room is full
of fun, colorful, inspiring things that would keep him captivated and help him develop all kinds of skills. There is no question it would be a
nice home, as is verified by the assessor that visited there. When I was leaving to come back home to Ontario, I looked around at all
the apartments and wondered if the parents and children living there KNEW they were leading a life the courts thought was not good
Section 8(a)(vi)"the plans that the person who is seeking custody has for the future of the child" Well, I guess all I had to do to
get sole custody of my own children was to tell the court that I wanted one of my sons to be a Chief Surgeon and the other to be an
Astronaut? This is just so ridiculous. What do any of us want but the very best for our children? Since when does the state decide who
is better than another? Excuse me! If we had all surgeons and astronauts but no garbage men or hairdressers we'd all be living in a heap
of dirt with hair around our ankles!
Section 8(a)(vii)"the wishes of the child, to the extent the court considers appropriate, having regard to the age and maturity of
the child" The wishes of the children have been very clearly laid out for governments BY children as seen in the United Nations
Convention on the RIGHTS of the child. This agreement was ratified by the Canadian government and very clearly outlines what children
want government's to do to respect their needs. I think it's important to note that in a recent report, Canada was 18 out of 21 on
Children's rights issues. As I said earlier as well, many, many adopted children go back later in life and look for their biological parents.
Some because of a great sense of being 'unfulfilled'. I would also like to mention a report a saw a year or so ago where medical doctors
stated that children, as young as age 6, were better able to tell the doctor what was wrong than their parents. The courts need to
Section 8(b)"NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PAST CONDUCT OF ANY PERSON UNLESS THE CONDUCT IS
RELEVENT TO THE ABILITY OF THAT PERSON TO ACT AS A PARENT OF A CHILD" Adam said it best in one of his recent
interviews. His nose was bloodied during the first trial. That's a pretty fair assessment, though I would call it more of a gang beating
than a bloody nose. The court has recognized Adam is adequate to parent and would even be a positive person in his son's life. What will
we do as parents when the courts decide that jaywalking is a serious offence and that if you have ever jaywalked you are a bad
influence? I know that sounds ridiculous, but WHO determines whether something I have done in my past will reflect my ability to raise
my children? Is there a secret list somewhere? If so, how do we get our hands on it?
Section 8(c)"make no presumption and draw no inference as between parents that one parents should be preferred over the other
on the basis of the person's status as a mother or father" I'm going to go all 'radical' here and say that to some there is a 'perceived'
bias against men in the family courts. For shame! It is not a 'perceived' bias but an 'absolute' bias. I doubt there are many of you out
there who are aware of this case that haven't thought to yourself, "IF THAT WAS A MOTHER, THAT CHILD WOULD HAVE BEEN
RETURNED IMMEDIATELY" If not even further to that, many have probably added "
AND HE WOULD BE IN JAIL" If that was your
gut reaction then you have validated my statement that there is an absolute bias against men in our courts and in our society. Because
Adam was "nothing but a male voice on the other end of the phone" and "nothing but a sperm donor", he was "given all assistance
but no help."
The court eventually said it was clear that the Turners provide an environment that will best provide for his health, education,
emotional well-being, opportunity for training, and economic and intellectual pursuits.
Now, wait a second! Haven't we just ADDED a couple of things to the list of determining the best interests of the child. I'll quickly go
through each of these points.
Health, covered under the child's physical needs.
Will the Turners know that Adam's family might have a history of heart disease or thyroid problems or any other kind of medical
history? Will the Turners be able to give their son a matching kidney or liver if it becomes necessary, or provide blood transfusions in
the event of a terrible accident or medial emergency. I would say that they ARE LIMITED in providing the best for Baby B's health. I'm
going to go even further and suggest that having a young child on a farm with horses and large heavy equipment is quite possibly
detrimental to a child's health. How often have we heard about tragic accidents involving children and farm machinery? We know who
usually wins that collision, don't we?
Education, not specifically listed as a criteria, but for the sake of argument, we'll put it under "PLANS FOR THE FUTURE".
Do you figure Justice Smith called the local public schools and highschools around each of these sets of parents and asked them what
their dropout or graduation rates are or how many of their students go off to post secondary education? What do you think might
happen to a child who had limited learning capabilities and was pushed rigorously into an academic program far beyond their capabilities?
I have seen several suicide reports and books that discuss this.
"Emotional well-being, specified in the list of criteria."
I argue again that these judges do not have a crystal ball. Who is to say the Ms. Turner will not experience depression or bipolar or
something later in life, or that her husband might have a stressful period of unemployment and take it out on the kids? These are
ridiculous assumptions and without proving Adam CANNOT provide for his son's emotional needs, it is unfair to suggest the Turners can
"Opportunity for training." ???
Ummm, where did that one come from? Opportunity for training, for
.. what? So, hypothetically of course, you're having your
furnace replaced and the furnace guy, needs an apprentice and he decides your baby would make the perfect apprentice. YOU don't have
the knowhow to train him as an apprentice furnace guy, so he takes your child because he can provide a better opportunity for training?
Again, nuff said.
Again, look out welfare mom's! Look out everyone that earns less than $100,000 per year. The court has set a serious standard for what
is in the best economic interests of a child. You better get out there and look for a second or third job.
There's that crystal ball again. The court did not prove that Adam cannot provide for his child's future intellectual pursuits. Who knows
that Baby B's pursuits will be? Maybe he'll be a Canadian Idol instead of a doctor, maybe he'll be the next Jimmy Johnson instead of an
Summing up a few loose ends.
There were arguments presented to the court that the child should not be removed from the Turners because bonding had occurred
and it would be too traumatic to move the child. Have you ever heard of people bonding with their kidnappers or with their captors?
Should it now be decided that if a child is kidnapped there should be a time limit put on looking for them because after a certain amount
of time they can be viewed as being bonded with their kidnapper? Really people, again, these are not common sense issues here. You
cannot justify a wrong by making that wrong right.
" The child has been adopted"
This is a very large myth that must be dispelled. With the inference that there was a legal adoption comes the inference that the
criteria laid out for an adoption have been fulfilled, i.e. there was home assessments done, etc. That is not the case here. There was no
legal adoption. The Turners are joint legal custodians of Baby B, that's all. There was no home assessments done, not until just before
the trial ( The assessor which, by the way, is a good friend of the Turners and was waiting after court for them in his car ). If it truly
was the intention of the Turners to adopt Baby B and raise him, would it not be conceivable that proper adoption measures would be
paramount on their minds? These are not people who were sitting on a list somewhere after fulfilling all adoption criteria. These are
people Adam knew nothing about and who, for whatever the reason is, are greatly disliked by the maternal biological grandmother.
"Adam's case was funded by Fathers 4 Justice Canada"
MYTH! Big myth!
Fathers 4 Justice Canada is a registered not for profit society that relies solely on membership fees and individual donations. See,
that's what makes Fathers 4 Justice a real rights organization, the sheer self sacrifice of its members, not one driven by greed and
displaced feminist values that most women would (should) be ashamed to adhere to, especially if they have sons, brothers, fathers, etc.
Organizations like the Leaf ( Legal Education and Action Fund for Women) fund court cases. The Ontario Women's Justice Network is
another, and previously we looked to the Court Challenges Program to screw men over. All previously funded by big government money to
boot. Thank God for women with common sense like Bev Oda who recognizes that, and I quote her,
"We don't need to treat men and women differently in this country."
Here Here Bev!
The importance of extended family
This should also be a consideration in the best interests of this child. Every day in court for a week, Adam was joined by his mother,
brother, sister, their spouses, AND their children, as well as a near and dear cousin. All of these people took time off work and traveled
to be there for Baby B. This little boy deserves to know the complete and overwhelming warmth and love that this family exudes!
Grandma C would spoil him rotten and make sure he grew up well fed and robust. I know this because night after night this family still
gathers for dinner, and what dinners they are! I miss them already. Auntie B and Uncle K and cousins C and A would be wonderful
examples that love is worth its weight in dollar bills! They are unselfish, kind, supportive, well rounded people who would be a
tremendous presence in Baby B's life. Uncle D, Aunt B, and cousins S, R, and A would also be wonderful for Baby B. Uncle D is a big
marshmallow, full of empathy and with an incredibly good heart. Aunt B is smart, sensitive, solid and a fabulous mom. The kids would all
make great role models for their Baby cousin.
Cousin L, Cousin J and Cousin S are also great support and an integral part of this nuclear family. Successful, thoughtful, strong and
positive. Ruth's mother and son also live by and are supportive and encouraging. And then there's the family friends. SO MANY OF
THEM! All at the ready for support and encouragement. As I said earlier, Ms. Turner was mostly by herself during the trial. Her family
is not nearby though his elderly parents live nearby. I did not see any aunts, cousins, brothers or sisters. Oh wait, I think I saw a sister
one day and Mr. Turner finally showed up the last two days of trial.
In closing: I could not imagine a better place for Baby B then in the presence of the love and support of his Dad, Ruth and their
family and friends. What a terrible miscarriage of justice. The Turners own lawyer, Blenner-Hassett said it sounded like the
authorities let Adam down. They sure did.
My own interpretation, Adam got screwed. He sure did.
IS THERE NO JUSTICE OUT THERE FOR A BIOLOGICAL FATHER?
I've been around a situation where a mother had a baby that she did not want. She is unable to care for this child for many reasons one of them being
a drug addiction. This baby was signed out from the hospital to a family UNKNOWN to social services and to other various government agencies.
The biological father wants his child and for reasons unknown to him can't get the help he is looking for from these government agencies.
After paternity testing was done it was proven that he indeed was the biological father. So why does he have to bear the sorrow of not having his own
flesh and blood? Why does a biological father have to fight for what is his, even when the mother does not want the child?
The people that have the child need to come forward and give the baby back to the biological father. There are many babies born, where neither of
the parent wants, or can not afford to raise the child, which is understandable, but this father has come forward and would like his child. I say to the
people who have this father's child to come forward and give this baby back to the rightful parent.
It seems terrible that a father has to fight for a child that is rightfully his and no one, especially the government will help him to get his child back.
There are two vehicles out there with broken hearts all over them one is a van and the other is a car, one heart a day goes on the vehicles for everyday
the father has been without his child, hoping that SOON he will be reunited with his child.
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX is being shafted, AGAIN
Today, Saturday October 28th, was supposed to be the day that XXXX (the Saskatoon father fighting for the right to raise his son) was to meet
his son. Once again XXXXXX XXXXXX and her husband have blocked the visitation attempt. You see, this week Justice J.A. Ryan-Froslie
ordered that XXXX be able to see his son and that the visitation happen as soon as possible. The Judge believes, as I do, that it is imperative
that the child see his father as soon as possible. This child is in his formative stages and is making bonds that will be important to him for the
rest of his life. The XXXXXXs blocked the order simply by appealing it. Family Services advised XXXX that they can not enforce an order that is
I am both shocked and appalled at this couple's behaviour. XXXXXX herself is an "Art Therapist" for children. You would think with her
experience and education she would understand the importance of a child having his father in his life. She has chosen to ignore this basic need,
and in my eyes basic RIGHT. Which leads me to believe that she does not have the child's best interest at heart and is instead selfish and self
serving. I do hope the the esteemed judges that ultimately decide this case, take her attitude and behaviour in to consideration when making a
final decision with relation to the child.
Friday, October 20, 2006
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX wants to be Dad
While DNA tests have proven that baby XXXX is biologically XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX's son, XXXX wants to be his dad. XXXX (of Saskatoon,
Saskcatchewan) had an off and on relationship with XXXX's mother XXXXXX XXXX, during which time XXXX was conceived. However the
mother did not inform XXXX of his impending fatherhood (and in fact claimed in documentation, to not know who the father was-a lie disproved
by her relatives that all very well knew XXXX was the dad), instead arrainging for a family friend to take the child. Close to the child's birth XXXX
did find out about baby XXXX through XXXXXX's stepbrother and since then has been trying to get help to get custody of his son. XXXX was
born in April, DNA tests proved XXXX's fatherhood in July, yet here we are in October and XXXX has yet to meet his son. XXXXXX XXXXXXX-XXXXXX and her husband are refusing to relinquish custody and have made demands that XXXX must abide by before they will let him see the
child. Even after a judge ordered visitation rights to XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXX-XXXXX (his fiancee) last month. I would like to know why has
this couple not been looked at for contravening a court order?
The first issue that the XXXXXX's stated in their case against XXXX, was that Children's Haven (the access facilitator) had voiced concerns
about XXXX's fiancee being in on the visits. The insinuation was that the facility did not want anyone other than XXXX to visit. Then the
XXXXXXX went on to demand that XXXX not refer to himself as "Daddy" or take any pictures of his son. It is absolutely absurd that this couple
is not only depriving this man of his rights as a father but want to downgrade him to a strange man that visits XXXX once a week for an hour,
while at the same time making a demand for child support. They said through their lawyer that they don't 'need' the money, but they want it
anyway. Because they were given custody by the mother, they feel they have the same rights as the mother. I beg to differ and would really like
to know why the courts have been messing around this long.
Are the courts waiting until the child is old enough to remember it all and be thoroughly traumatized? Give that child to his father now and let the
XXXXXXX (who have NO biological connection to him) try to fight for custody or visitation rights. I mean really, this one is a no brainer.
Now I refer back to the insinuation made by the XXXXXX's that Children's Haven was against XXXX's fiancee XXXX being involved with the
child. Through Children's Haven's own lawyer (Marty Popuscul) we learn that they have denied staff had any issue with XXXX attending the
visits. Haven reiterated that their purpose is infact to help children and their parents be together. Not to hinder the process. The general policy of
restricting visits to "just parents" is not carved in stone and in this particular case would be changed, due to the Court Order. XXXXXX proved by
insinuating such things, that she is not beyond distorting truth to further her own agenda (which I really question as to whether or not includes
XXXX's best interest)
Perhaps XXXXXX thought that her personal connection with the facility would help her, as she stated in a sworn affidavit that she was a regular
donor and at one time sat on the board for the facility (in the 90s). The only thing that that proves to me, is that the use of this particular facility is
indeed a conflict of interest and the court should designate a different facility.
XXXXXX's lawyer also tried to pressure XXXX's lawyer in to stopping him from going to the media. I hope that XXXX and his lawyer completely
disregard these "requests". While the media can often be a hinderance, in this particular case I believe it could help. Perhaps a "well to do"
benefactor or legal experts will see XXXX's story and step forward to help him.
Far too often in this day and age, fathers and mothers are walking away or doing far worse to their children. Here is a man that wants to
wholeheartedly take on the responsibilites of fatherhood, but is being hampered by a couple that has no biological connection to the child and a
court system that moves at a snails pace.
posted by Kari
Unfair Bizarre Case
I have read every news article and listened to every television and radio news cast about this unfair bizarre case. I think the parties have lost sight over the main
issue, and that is the best interest of the baby. I just can not see how these stall tactics are in the best interest of the baby. Why would it take so long for the
court to make a decision about this child?
Every hospital and government agency that this father could think of knew that he was declaring he was the father. Once the baby was born why were there no
blood tests taken at that point and time to establish paternity? Why didn't the hospital and government agencies think of that right away? Was it a matter of this
?adoption ? already in the works?
I believe the biological mother went into the hospital under The Privacy Act fully aware that this man was going to come forward and declare that he was the
father. Under said act how is it that she was able to get flowers delivered to the hospital from the father on Mother ? Day? One has to ask themselves how does
this privacy act work and who does it really work for? If the biological mother did go into hospital under this act then in actuality the hospital should not have
said what room the flowers were to go to. Wouldn 't one have said that there is no one here by that name? This is a great indication of something going wrong
at the hospital. If this went wrong what else has going wrong at the hospital?
The father took it upon himself to get DNA Testing done and pay for this himself . The tests came back as yes he is the biological father of this child. I always
thought in order for a legal adoption to take place they had to have the written consent of both biological parents. So how can a baby be ?adopted ? if they do
not have the written consent of both biological parents? It doesn't sound like this father wants to give up his right to be a father to his son.
Six months after the birth of the child and paternity was proven, on October 4, 2006 the matter finally goes to Court. The Judge awarded one hour of visitation
to the father along with his fiancéée. The parties were to decide between them where and when these access visits were to take place. They decided every
Saturday at a facility in Prince Albert. But for the first few visits it was not convenient for the Prince Albert couple. Then it was later learned that the couple
had connections with this facility and a lot of conditions were set down. One being the father ?s fiancéée could not attend but the PA couple could be in the
room and present. Clearly that is not what the Judge ordered.
By pure luck of surfing the web, the father came across a website and lo and behold he was able to see his son for the first time, and only being able to touch
his cheek on a monitor and his son not being able to respond.
On October 25th, the parties went back to Court. Another Judge had awarded the father and his fiancéée the right to visit the child Only this time making the
decision for both parties as to a location, specific day and time, what can be done such as the father can take pictures of his son, and even be able to call
himself Daddy or what ever he chooses to call himself, and the Prince Albert couple can not be there
What great news for the father, his fiancee, family and all his supporters to read in the paper and see on the news. I know I cried for joy for this father, as I have
cried every time I see him and his fiancéée on tv, or even hear him on the radio. Finally everything had been laid out like a children's novel very detailed for
both parties to understand, and it was a court order.
I went to bed last night thinking of this father, and how joyous he must be to finally be able to hold his son in his arms. I am very excited for this man. Instead I
wake up to read in the news paper that the Dad's visit with his son has been cancelled, I sat over a cup of coffee and wept for this man, my heart sunk as I am
sure millions of others reading this sad news did. This is so unfair to the Child as well as the father. I wish that baby was able to talk and understand how much
his father wants him, i am sure this child like every other child that has been given away, would want to spend time with his or her biological parent.
One has to wonder what kind of morals and values this Prince Albert couple have. Think about it. There are so many children that their biological parents had
to give them up for adoption whether it be emotional, economical, even age reasons or the fact that they were just not able to provide and safe and loving home
for them This simply is not the case in this matter. From what I have seen and heard from all sources this couple can provide the baby a safe, loving and stable
One almost has to wonder if it wouldn't be in the best interest of this baby to be put with the biological father until the Court decides custody. At least it would
be in a home where access would be facilitated. I know that sounds cold since the baby has been in the Prince Albert couple's home for six months but is it
really in the child ?s best interest to be there?
The RCMP have been asked to investigate to find out what went terribly wrong at the hospital. Just one of the may questions this father has.
I have now learn ?t that the biological father and his fiancéée have had a couple of visits with the child, and the child has a great instinct and knows who is
father is. I was so very happen to hear that the child has his fathers eyes.
Let 's ensure that there are no more stall tactics, and bring this baby home.
Any one interested in helping this man out, a trust fund in the dad's name has been set up at TD Canada Trust branches nationwide. It is in his name, which
can't be published, but most branches are familiar with the case and would know for whom the donations are intended.
The story of our friend and brother"Adam" might well be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for the Fathers Rights movement and the War on
Fathers and the Family. It might just be the catalyst for change we all know has to come. There really is just so much we can take, Still, I hesitate to so loosely
describe such a calamity as a mere straw. Having said that you all know that many stories of horror abound . As this is being written there are litewrally
hundreds of thousands of Fathers in Canada today without their children. And these Fathers knew their children and tucked them into bed at night, read them
stories and were their guides and protectors. In essence they were 24 hour parents before finding themselves as twice a month parents with the stroke of a pen
and the bang of a gavel. And the horror of family law is only just beginning at that point. We all know how much worse it gets. You can bet we identify with
our brother "Adam" as he is forced to be called. There is no doubt that non custodial Fathers are the largest single oppressed visible minority in Canada today
and the situation with family law and the rights of Fathers and their children is the biggest single social disaster in this country's history.
Farhers Rights Activist