P>WOW All this talk about men being Dads to the childern they father and this guy is getting shafted. The Gov. says he has a great home life or what ever ... so that he can raise the child. We get some lawyer saying ohhh but whats best for the child. Not positive about the courts in Canada but seems to me that if the child can be cared for by the father he should get custody of the kid. I do feel for the couple but they should look at the mother and be pissed at her for lieing about not knowing whom the father is. I hope no matter whom the courts rule for custody the mother does not have contact with the child.

She gave up her rights to the child how could she ever face him in later years and be able to look him in the eye.

Adoptive parents win in father's custody battle


Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

The biological father of an infant boy has lost a high-profile custody battle in Saskatchewan after a court decision granted full custody to the child's guardians and banned the natural father from seeing the child for a year.

In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child's best interests, and should be maintained.

""It is clear that they present an environment that will best provide for his health, education, emotional well being, opportunity for training and economic and intellectual pursuits,"" wrote Justice Shawn Smith.

The court found the biological father ---- referred to in the judgment under the pseudonym ""Adam"" ---- was capable of having a positive presence in the life of baby ""Ian"", but not in a parental role.

Due to that, the court ordered the biological father not gain access to the child for one year, unless all parties agreed otherwise. That would give the child a year of ""familial calm"" to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the judgment states.

The Saskatoon father said that the judge's decision was unfair.

"I wasn't trying to win father of the year award or anything like that ---- I was just trying to be a good father," said the man.

"I'm left wondering what the definition of a father might be now."

The high-profile case stretches back to autumn 2005, when the child's biological mother ""Rose"" realized she was pregnant.

Rose and Adam ended their short-lived relationship after an alcohol-fuelled violent incident in mid-2005.

In a bid to create a better life for her child, the biological mother sought out family friends ""Linda and Dave Turner"" and, after much consideration and consultation with counsellors and lawyers, the Turners took the child into their home immediately after his birth.

""Having brought Ian home from the hospital, he has, as is the nature of babies, become the centre of their universe,"" wrote Judge Smith. ""They love him as if he were their own.""

The mother stated in guardianship documents that she didn't know who the father was. A DNA test later confirmed the paternity.

The father found out the woman was pregnant a few weeks before the baby was born, and with his fiancéée, sought avenues to gain custody of the baby boy.

But on Monday, he lost the long court process to gain custody of his biological son.

Adam said social services officials did nothing to help him once he found out about the adoption.

"The family justice system needs to be looked at," said the man, his eyes red from crying.

"I still feel very, very betrayed by the government organizations. I think that's what set the events into play now, and that's how I lost."

He said he was willing and able to raise the boy.

While the court said Adam displayed the protective instincts of a father and seemed willing to take on the lifelong role of parent, there were many unknowns, mainly stemming from his relationship and family history.

""When one considers the path Adam has travelled, it is, perhaps, not surprising that he presents as emotionally fragile. However, it is appropriate to note that he has shown grit and determination in his pursuit for custody of his child,"" the judge wrote. ""Many in his circumstance would have faltered. He has not.""

Yet in the end, being an ""adequate"" parent was not the best test to determine what was in the best interests for that child, and the judge concluded that ""from all the evidence, without hesitation, ... Ian's best interests are served by granting custody to the Turners.""

The man's lawyer had cautioned the judge to be wary of setting a precedent "that deprives fathers of knowing and caring for their children."

"It's been disappointing," said lawyer Mark Vanstone said of the ruling.

"It seems that one could be a natural father who does absolutely everything possible to step forward . . . but the system seems to do nothing but erect hurdles and obstacles to somebody in those circumstances."

Mr. Vanstone said it was too early to know if they would file an appeal.

Lawyer Rick Danyluik, who represented the couple, had reminded the court about some of the negative aspects raised against the father and his fiancee during the trial.

Both have experienced alcoholism, several failed relationships and unlawful conduct. The man also has other children by previous relationships, court heard.

Mr. Danyluik had urged Judge Smith to put biology aside and consider the level of care his clients could provide. He pointed out the two are financially secure and educated, and could offer the baby better opportunities.

After the decision was released, he disputed claims that it deprives biological fathers of the right to parent.

"I'm not sure it is a blow to parents rights," said Mr. Danyluik.

"In custody matters the focus shifted away from parents' rights and more toward children's rights probably 30 to 40 years ago."

The decision, Mr. Danyluik said, was appropriate and best for the child.

He described the little boy at the centre of the fight as "a very bright, bubbly, happy baby."

"I would say he is just absolutely thriving in the care of our clients," said Mr. Danyluik. "He is doing great, which is just wonderful to see."

The guardians have already given the baby their surname and are seeking child-support payments from the father, the court heard.

With a report from Canadian Press

james castle from Canada writes: Seems like a fair decision. If the 'real' father won't even tell the court his real name why would the court grant him access?

martha D from Brampton, Canada writes: There is a great explanation of this story on the CBC website. The boy's father was not even told he was the father of the child (the mother kept it from him) but when he found out, he immediately called for DNA testing and it was proven he was the father. Due to the mother's [intentional?] oversight??/negligence? he lost precious bonding time with his child as she had relinquished her parental rights to the adoptive parents, without the father's consent! There is a 'hint' from other news organizations that the adoptive parents even knew this. But the judge ruled in favour of the adoptive parents because so much time had passed and the child had bonded with them. To me this is a travesty of justice and sad beyond belief. I have no doubt whatsoever that the biological parents are good, solid parents, but to neglect the father's wishes or to not even make him part of their extended family and to have the child eventually acknowledge him as the father is unforgiveable, given today's openness for adoption proceedings. As well, this is a First Nation's child and his paternal grandmother also wants to help raise him, along with the community. What a sad sad ending to this story. The first miscarriage of justice seems to me to lay with the mother and then with the system. There may be more to this story than we are told, but first impressions are lasting ones

tori scott from Canada writes: This is SO wrong.
If this man was not told about this baby, and the woman kept the baby, the woman would be perfectly within her rights to demand child support.
You cant have it both ways!!!
The baby is less than a year old. The courts have given even more time for the baby to bond with the adoptive parents, so now any chance of bonding with the child's biological father is gone. David any from Forlorn, Canada writes: Opps...Divorced father of two. I just wonder why there is no government funded support system for Dad's like him.There is a bad bad time for abandoned fathers to get their heads together.It takes years. That Father should have access to the child somehow...even if it is supervised.It is the childs right. Why doesn't the public acknowledge the damage being done to what might have been good fathers all across this country. Just because men don't verbalize everything they are feeling does'nt mean they aren't being damaged. It never surprises me when there is a murder suicide involving an abandoned father or just a plain suicide. There is a big hole left in a fathers heart when his kids are taken away. Even if he is percieved as a big insensitive good for nothin. Behind lots of lousy fathers there are rotten manipulative women with a court system who believes only what they say.

East Coast Islander from Canada writes: I don't understand how this could happen in this day and age. Even in divorce decisions where custody is involved judges are increasingly recognizing the rights of fathers to equal custody and access.

If there were no mitigating circumstances, eg. something to suggest the biological father was unfit, this decision flies in the face of our current thinking on parental rights.

Alan Wong from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Wow, legally stolen child. Sad, but this probably happens all the time with adopted kids, where a pregnant mother doesn't tell the father. Nanci InBCsomewhere from Canada writes: Seeing how there is no test required to become a parent, this opens the door for anyone who wants to become a parent to do so. If blood relation is not enough to justify a father's right to raise his own child, then maybe our omnipotent and all knowing government should raise all our children in a safe and wholesome environment until they are of an age where they could pick their own parents. This would stop all the bickering about 'fit' parents, 'gay' parents, 'single' parents, 'bi-racial' parents etc. Surely as Canadians you have all picked up on the fact that we are all incompetent and a massive gov't is required to orchastrate our lives for us. This step of state raised youth is only the next logical move for a government that seems preoccupied with controlling every nuance of our existance B H from Toronto, Canada writes: This is incredible. A child put up for adoption without the parent's consent and against the parent's own wishes??? He had a parent who wanted him but somehow the courts decided it would be OK for him to be adopted anyway? Surely that requires evidence of serious abuse or other signs of unfitness to parent to take such extreme measures as to forcibly prevent a parent from caring for their own child. It is pretty sick that somehow one parent is apparently legally allowed to give away parental rights for both of them without the the other parent's knowledge or consent J P from Toronto, Canada writes: Thworing this out there. Do you think part of the reason this happened is because the father is not a native? Modern Canadian society
frowns on taking native children out of their comunity.
Any way you slice it, most kids would be lucky to have a dad who wants them this much. As a society we say that dad's have to be involved, I guess the courts really think otherwise mr motoc from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Too bad that Adam doesn't have the sense to claim that he's (suddenly ! like MAGIC !)'found the Lord'. Then he would automatically have the support of millions of people across the country, and could claim that the court had engaged in 'anti-Christian bigotry' in its decision. Adam: Get a clue, dude. andrew croy from Barbados writes: Hmmm now that its proven he is the father will someone be hitting him up for child maintence monies Karol Karolakfrom Canada writes: Just to add an insult to injury, adoptive parents in this case sued biological father for child support for the child that they legaly stole from him.
Only in Family Court only in Canada Gisele Theriault from Montreal, Canada writes: I think this will be over-turned. Not allowing the father to even visit his child is not in the child's best interests. There is no hint that he is in any way abusive. No hint that he is still on drugs or unable to care for his child. The Mother never gave up her rights because there was no formal adoption nor any proceedings even begun Peter C from Markham, Canada writes: Interesting precedent: A parent who is deemed less able to provide for a child a healthy and happy home in which to grow and become all he can be than a more affluent couple has lost the right to be that child's parent. A slippery slope. How long before the next step? Parent loses job --> court system removes infant from home --> places child with a family better able to provide for it. Ken Sandersonfrom Calgary, writes: Read over the brief and frankly the situation makes me grumpy. I think the whole situation stinks, but most of all I think demanding someone stay away from their child for a year is frankly cruel to the father.

The person above has it right in that if the mother went after the father for child support he would have to pay, yet when it boils down to his rights... he has none. He got the run around from the government which was unable to handle his requests, he gets his life picked apart like he is somehow 'wrong' in this situation and accordingly judged as being only adequate and then told he cant see his child for atleast a year. Sam B from Cambridge, Canada writes: This is unreal - and yes MB, I read the Case Summary. 'Rose' got pregnant, kept it from 'Adam', and gave the child away. Immediately upon finding out that Rose was pregnant and planning to give the baby up, Adam and his fiancÃé© 'Ruth', decided to pursue custody. A DNA test was carried out, and the child was proven to be his. During the trial Rose's mother 'Elise', actually testified that Adam should have custody over the adoptive parents.

End result - a man, whose child was given to another couple without his consent, will now be breaking the law if he sees the child in the next year! What would happen if a woman''s child was taken away without her consent???

The reasoning of keeping custody away from Adam because the adoptive parents can provide a better home (albeit it in a different culture) than he, is downright scary. Many children are born into terrible situations every day in this country. Is it now the governments role to decide who, and who shouldn't raise children???

Unbelievable, men in Canada have absolutely no rights when it comes to children Jay Freed from Toronto, Canada writes: Riddle me this: Would the judge have ever removed a child from a MOTHER who wanted to raise her child and the circumstances were absolutely identical?

This is sexism -- plain and simple. Take political action: now! B A from Ottawa, Canada writes: With a little further research you can also find out that the father was still expected to pay child support to these thieves. So, technically the child has two adoptive parents. The biological father wants his child back because he never had the right/opportunity to take the child for himself. The court says no, for no other reason than his past is less than perfect, but that he can still pay for the child. What kind of sick judiciary BS is this?! Yes, granted, the child is financially better off in a dual income upper middle-class family. However, this sets a very dangerous precendent. Want your kid, daddy? Sorry, these people have more money than you and because the mom can't be bothered to take care of it,(funny, we were all led to believe mothers were all naturals at it) we'll give it to the rich folk. Now, now, dad, you have two choices, pay your child support and hope to God they'll grant you visitation or if you like there's always the rope hanging from this rafter over here, see? It'll be quick. Disgusting. Here's another couple of options. On one hand, we can all start giving fathers a chance to be parents when they so obviously want to be for the child that they actually fathered. Or, Two, we can marginalize these men into a desperate state and pretend to be shocked and appalled when they end up taking their own lives. People, when the courts equate 'the best interest for your child' is to be with somebody richer and more affluent than yourself it's time to do something about the courts and I'm afraid the time for nasty letters is past. Bonfire, anyone? T G from Canada writes: Can anyone say: activist judges biased against men? Sibley Mfrom Canada writes: This is an appalling legal decision. Don't adoptions make any effort to verify male birth parents whose children are being STOLEN ? The father wasn't aware of his child. Even worse the father isn't given any say in either adoption or custody when he did discover his child. Yet we allow a non-birth parent to be a third legal parent in the case of the two lesbian partners. Why do we bend the rules for them , but not for a natural parent? How will this child feel when he/she discovers this in 20 years time? Judy Green from Toronto, Canada writes: This is a sick decision. The Americans are way ahead of us. In the U.S. the biological father might sign the adoption papers as well. And I doubt the good intentions of the adoptive parents, since they are seeking child support from the father. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they adopt the child and are fully responsible, or they share guardianship, and in that case, no-one should be paying anything to anyone R. Thompson from Ottawa, Canadawrites: It's interesting that of all these posts, only a few have caught the double standard/double jeopardy clause - the biological father being sued for child support by the adopting parents. I was under the impression that adoption was final and the adoptive parents were solely responsible for the child adopted. How come the law is being re-written by judicial fiat? Do all adoptive parents now have the right to sue for child support? Isn't this also a precedent that can be followed elsewhere? Charles Rowe fromCalgary, Canada writes: The father is the rightful parent of this child if the mother does not want them. She has, and indeed had, no right to give this child to someone else. If we prove in this case that the father has no rights when it comes to their offspring then how using that same logic can we claim that they have any responsibility. If this is upheld, it should, working on a principle of consistent application of laws eliminate all responsibility to provide any support. Taken to its extreme this is a bad decision for Canada. Shame on you Judge. runner danchuk from Saskatoon, Canada writes: The judge made a horrible decision and is playing God with this infants life. Very judgemental and totally unfair for the father to be deprived his basic biological rights as a parent. That's a very nasty bitter decision. What gives the courts the right to dictate what would be best for this family? Banana Republic from Canada writes: No need to worry about a future pandemic. The Canadian judicial has already come down with bad case of something nasty. Winston Smith from Brampton, Canada writes: 'The guardians ... are seeking child-support payments from the father.'

I suppose if my car is stolen, this judge will order me to make monthly payments to the thief for gas. T G from Toronto, Canada writes: This story has left me shaking my head in disbelief. Had 'Rose' decided to keep the child, 'Adam' would have been responsible for child support due to his role in fathering the child. However, 'Rose' decides to give the child away and 'Ian' has no rights at all. To add insult to injury, the biological father is required to pay child support to the so-called parents who stole his child. Shocking. Absolutely, shocking Mike Davey from Victoria, Canada writes: I am sure everyone knows some parents who are less then stellar, you might know parents who are terrible. But unless you beat, starve or abuse your children, you get the opportunity to make mistakes, learn from your mistakes and move on in the best way you know how.

Many people have checkered pasts, or done things we are not proud of, but most of us get past it and do the best we can for our children. Now it seems that 'our best' isn't good enough, and if someone can do better, then they can take your child. In the end, this is what it boils down to. The child can have a better life with others, therefore his role as a father is terminated by the government. I bet thirty percent of the children out there could do better by other parents. Not to mention all the kids quietly starving because their parents can't afford to buy enough food. Our governments are happy to let child poverty run rampant, but wont give a father a chance.

Then these people not only stick in the knife, they give it a good twist by seeking child support, for a child they have stolen. I hope that the man can appeal this ruling and gain his rights.

This is very sad. kim sorensen from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is wrong on so many levels. This father has been wronged and this decision is embarrassing. There is nothing noted of concern in the case that we have an unfit father, and his rights, and the child's rights hacve been trounced. Perhaps the adoptive parents have more affluence, but the child has a right to bond with his father - who WANTS him. I even has some sympathy for the couple who adopted the child, until they announced they wanted child support. This is simply appalling. If they were truly best suited to look after the child, why are they asking for child support. And is it really that easy to adopt a child from a pregnant, socially disadvantaged girl? People- we need to fix some things in this country, especially with father's rights.

It is also time for the child custody recommendations made and ignored with the previous government to be enacted - joint custody by default and essentially equal time wiht each parent by default. Conservatives - my vote involves this issue - two parents for every child, regardless of divorce. It is what Canadians said they wanted and it was ignored. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Now we know something about the wisdom of Solomon. I found it rather amusing about the loving adoptive parents in a separate court case suing for child support. The father must be an interesting character getting a DNA tst to prove the relationship. He seems like a very dedicated character. Most men in such a casual relationship would disappear. Durgan. Two women came before King Solomon. One woman (the true mother) said, 'My lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. On the third day after I gave birth she also gave birth…… This woman's child died during the night because she lay on him. She arose during the night and took my son from my side while I slept, laid him on her bosom and laid her dead child on my bosom. When I rose in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was dead! But when I observed him in the morning, I realized that he was not my son to whom I had given birth.' The other woman replied, 'It is not so! My son is the live one and your son is the dead one.' King Solomon briefly reiterated their arguments and ordered, 'Bring me a sword.' The King then said, 'Cut the living child in two, and give half to one and half to the other.' The woman who claimed that her son was stolen from her said, 'Please, my lord, give her the living child and do not kill it.' But the other woman said, 'Neither mine nor yours shall he be. Cut!' The king spoke up and said, 'Give the first woman the living child and do not kill it; for she is his mother.' Durgan. Ian McDonald from Toronto, Canada writes: The adoptive parents are suing the father for child support? The guy was worthy of being a father to the child but is worthy to pay? Lisa Jones of the Celtic nation within a nation from Canada writes: This decision is simply shocking! First they deny the father parental rights and then they demand he fork over money? Now what decent nurturing person would do such a terrible thing to a father? I my opinion, if those people who adopted the child truly cared about the child's well being, they would have shared custody with the father and not demanded a penny. Bob Seven from Edmonton, Canada writes: I would believe that this is a case for that what is best for the child. Obviously, Adam's past is too much of a problem so he can't get the child. Hold on a moment though.......he is the biological father, right? Then, since the adoptive family has the 'burden' of raising his child, they are suing for child support??? Wow, this has nothing to with what is best for the child, it has to do with greed. A couple who seemingly can't have a child of their own, agree to adopt a baby while knowing that the father didn't know about the adoption, and then they want his money too??? Give me a break, is this what you will be teaching this child as they grow up? If the 'Turners' are really in it for what is best for the child, they either need to give up the child to the biological father or take the responsiblity to raise the child on their own with no financial help from biological father.

The Turners should be ashamed of themselves Christopher DeGeer from Toronto, Canada writes: What does it mean that 'Adam', the father, 'presents as emtionally fragile'? Most fathers wouldn't present well after finding out that strangers had their child and were seeking support payments from them, while requiring them to keep their distance on penalty of societal sanction. To most parents, that 'presents' as kidnapping and extortion Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: Wow! I'm in total shock. Nevermind the deceit and dishonesty used against this poor man, but to actually make him pay child support after stealing his child?? Get ready to read the final chapter in this story when this guy loses his sanity and does something which is in the best interest of noone. Is this what this country has come to? It's worse than I thought. Wayne Coleman from Canada writes: I am confused. The judgement stated 'Adam and Ruth made little progress with the authorities. Perhaps this is not surprising as Adam presented as someone who was unacknowledged by the birth mother, nor did he have a current relationship with her. To the authorities, he was simply a male voice on the phone asserting paternity'.
Earlier this month the Canadian Government caved in and paid out more then $10,000,000.00 ostensibly because some Canadian 'authorities' screwed up and the guy got on a plane to Damascas instead of Toronto.
In this case, at great costs, financial and otherwise, not only is a father without his child and the child without his rightful father but the authorities do not have to account for anything. Is this not a classic double standard K Lyon from Canada writes: I truly cannot believe that not only is the father unable to have contact with his child, but the adoptive parents, who in the eyes of the court is the better choice, are seeking child support from the biological father. Talk about adding insult to injury. That is absolutely assinine. If the adoptive parents are the better choice, then persumably they are financially solvent and can aford this child. Why on god's green earth would they find it necessary to further humiliate the biological father by asking for child support. Unbelievable Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: The courts have always favoured Mothers as against Fathers. I think there are so many BAD mothers out there and if genuine
fathers want their children, who have been denied the knowledge that they actually have children, then the courts should not deny those fathers their legal and moral right. The trouble is that the costs for appeals are so horendous that the the poor fathers do not have a chance in hell to get justice. Actually, there is no justice in Canada if the judges and lawyers get together to work things out their way. In many cases, in rural areas, arrangements are made to allow appeals so that the case can go to the Supreme Court who automatically decide that it is too small to be heard. Some Justice! Fred B from Toronto, Canada writes: So the judge determined that the father was 'adequate' but the adoptive parents were 'better than adequate'. Did they have more resources? Was it a race? Michael Owens from Calgary, Canada writes: I was adopted, and there was nothing my biological father could do to prevent it. My biological mother and him eventually got married, and he spent the rest of his life, obsessed with finding me. I met him twice before he passed away.

I am now the father of a 3 year old boy who has become everything to me. I would go absolutely berserk if he was separated from me. I feel for the biological father in this case. Since the child's adoption was based on false information, it should NOT be valid.

If the adoptive parents are not able to support the child, and need 'child support' from the biological father, this alone, should be reason for the adoption to be rescinded. This decision leaves me fuming! henry binnema from Barbados writes: How can the court describe the Turners as better parents? A family that truly adapts a child doesn't ask for child support. The mother acknowledges by her actions that she is an unwilling parent. Then suddenly why it the father not next in line? The father was never given the opportunity to enjoy what the Turners are enjoying. WHY HAS SOCIETY SAID NO?

What kind of parents are the Turners really when they are so selfish as to ask for child support from a father that they want to deny access? A further and complete slap in the face to the father.

When will the courts start to realize that fathers frequently are good parents. When will the courts realize that often being a parent can be the best thing that ever to a man, just like it is to the Turners. The Father's rights were zapped from him.

Laurie G from Toronto, Canada writes: If that child learns that he is not the biological child of the parents, and the story of how he came to be with them, the scars will be lifelong.

I am a child that was given up at age 3. Even though I have found & now by choice, given up my biological family and know the story, I will always have emotional scars.

To ask a father who wants to be involved in his child's life, to pay child-support to a couple who want to act as the parents for this child, makes no logical sense to me.

Sounds to me like 19th century discrimination in the 21st century. HOGWASH - Maybe the Judge is loony and should have his brains checked

Derek Holtom from Swan River (Only cowards don't use their real names on here), writes: NEXT ON FOX - WHEN JUDGES ATTACK!

Anyone want to stand up for judges in Canada

Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: these people dont deserve a cent from this man. oh, and by the way: who are the fools who keep asking where this man was during pregnancy? if you actually READ the article you will see that it answers this question quite plainly. stop choosing to be ignorant. gotta love these people, they claim that hes a horrible father (regardless of the lack of info on this article), yet the mother didnt even tell him about the child, and when he DOES find out about it, and tries to become involved in the life of his child, the courts tell him 'no'. and whats worse, these people expect support. its good to know that its not just the courts who are bias against fathers. and anyone who listens to the info people say theyve accumulated outside of this article, without checking into it themselves, are naive.

Mr. Grinch from Edmonton, Canada writes: The courts are out of control. They have no right to restrict a parents access to a child

J Dick from Canada writes: Let's ignore the support payments, as I suspect that the court is going to throw those out. It would just be too stupid - even for Canada.

To all those people suggesting that the judge made the right decision because the child will be in a better environment - do you also think that we should take a lot of children away from single mothers - because there are better homes that the children could be placed in? Probably not.

No one would dare take a child away from its mother, for the reasons of: a history or alcoholism in the family or there is a more able family that wants the child. Yes, it may be better for the child to be in that environment, but what about the rights of the parent? Do they count for nothing, or do they count for nothing only when that parent is male?

If we're serious about bridging the gap in gender inequality, then we have to recognize that the biggest contributor to inequality is the assumption that the woman is the primary caregiver. Therefore, a decision like this, which essentially states: the child is the property of the mother - sets any sort of equality movement back about 80 years. D Stuff from Edmonton, Canada writes: This story is sickening. By default, a man's legal rights in any family related matters seem to come last. This man was robbed of his son by a mother who withheld information from him, the legal guardians who knew of the deception and our 'fine' the legal system who have taken away his rights. To add insult to injury, the people who have robbed this man of his son, and who the court apparently feels are better guardians, now want his money.

If they want this child so badly, they should be able to support him. If child support is to be paid, it should be by the mother who abandoned him. K M from North of GTA, Canada writes: It's hard to side with the adoptive parents when they keep the guys child then ask for payments Laurie G from Toronto, Canada writes: On the surface, this new family may seem like what is best for the child now, but you cannot see 20 years down the road, to know how either adult or any other family members shall treat the child.

There are many instances where children are put into homes that at the time were deemed to be in their best interests, but later it turned out, the child suffered, whether it be emotionally, mentally or physically Gerry Vee from Winterpeg, Canada writes: Another fine example of a justice system that has no intent of righting a wrong, but rather perpetuating the status quo, which is biased against men. The young man wants to take responsibility for his child and is kicked square in the nads by the courts and the adoptive parents and on top of it all, they want him to pay support.

Every day, a new example of how screwed up the family justice system is.

What does a man need to be considered a single parent worthy of the court's respect? Breasts? Sam B from Cambridge, Canada writes: Lets forget this is a man/woman thing. Let's look at the bare facts.

1) There is a custody dispute between 2 adoptive parents, and a biological parent, who has a significant other, where the biological parent never agreed to hand over custody.

2)The court agrees that the biological parent and significant other, have sufficiently proven to the court that they have a true desire to care for the child, and have demonstrated that they are adequate to the task.

3)The court compares T4's, bank statements, etc... from each couple and decides that the adoptive parents would be able to provide a better standard of care, and that the custody of the child should go to the adoptive parents, thereby extinguishing the biological parents parental rights.

So, moral of the story. If you're poor, you better not get into a custody dispute with a rich person. Because you will lose your biological children. Heck, if you're rich, you better not get in a custody dispute with an ultra-rich person - because after all, they will be able to provide a better standard of care than you Sue W from Canada writes: So if the mother had kept the baby would she have remembered that there was a father involved who would probably now be paying child support? Nikki Patterson from Toronto,Canada writes: These people love the baby as if he were there own...................oh yeah, just not quite enough to support him as if they were his own. These people are clearly not adequate to be anyone's parents. How disgusting that the judge would keep the child in their care. Sharon Maracle from Toronto, Canada writes: As an adopted child, let me tell you there is no replacement for the birth parent.

I had a wonderful adopted home with loving people who were, by far, in every way better parents than my birth parents, and offered me more. But in many ways it would have been better for me to have been left with my inadequate dysfunctional unmarried alcoholic birth parents.

Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, ON, Canada writes: to add a note... The fact that the adoptive parents are suing for child support may have been a legal ploy in their custody battle, a way of confronting the biological father with his responsibilities. It looks like a lawyer's way of seeing things

Iain Muncie from Canada writes: Oh what is the point of being a father! Wear a condom. You get screwed either way

joe blow from writes: And to think.. if this were to happen in Ontario - if 'Adam' didn't pay the child support he'd have his driver's license suspended, and his picture posted on a website as a 'deadbeat dad', to boot! What a sick, sick world we live in nowadays. This is a travesty of justice that does not respect the rights of the father specifically, or men in general. I can see this being overturned on constitutional grounds for sexual discrimination

John John from Upper Canada, Canada writes: The issue here is how can one biological parent put a child up for adoption without the agreement or consent of the other bioligical parent. While one parent was making arrangements, the other parent was working to establish recognition as a parent. The Courts have failed us. To shift the debate to the 'best interests of the child' is to avoid the real question of whether the adoption was lawful. In the absence of any finding that the biological father is an unfit parent - who is the Court, the legislature and society to deprive a bioligical parent of the right to raise their bioligical child. This is a very sad day for Canadian Justice as there is none here

R D from Toronto, Canada writes: It is pretty clear that this young man has gotten shafted by the anti-male bias of yet another provincial government. Had this been the MOTHER who wanted the child BACK, she would have GOTTEN IT BACK.

There's a lesson to be extrapolated from this, and it is this.





I am thankful I have citizenship to another, more ethical country graced with a justice system that does not seem bent on demonstrating injustice, the way Canada's courts seem to do.

Rob Mckeon from Toronto, Canada writes: HELLO?! what about the father's rights... oh yeah, sorry, I forgot, we live in Canada - and the whacked-out lefties have made it impossible for fathers to be fathers, smokers to be smokers, criminals to be served justice, and human beings to be protected by the laws which they are supposed to be subjected to. Is there any wonder that fathers aren't paying child support, criminals aren't disuaded by sentancing, civic laws are being flouted, and everyone is so darn inconsiderate of each other these days?? Where's the justice in this decision??!! D Stuff from Edmonton, Canada writes: This passage from the 'CUSTODY AND GUARDIANSHIP AGREEMENT', clearly indicates that had the father been informed of the pregnancy, and had been given the opportunity to makes his wishes and intentions known before the adoption, the child would have been his. HE WAS ROBBED!

'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;' Avid Reader from Regina, Canada writes: Is it possible that the Court of Queen's Bench made an error in law? Canadian courts decide custody, and sometimes joint custody, 'in the best interests of the child' where two separated parents both want to raise their child, and cannot agree. In this case the father wanted the child and the mother also testified that she wanted the father to have the child, after she found out that Adam was the father. Canadian courts can also seize a child where the biological parent or parents are proven to be unfit. But the biological father was not found unfit. The court erred in applying the wrong test. The court used the 'best interests' test in order to seize a child and give it to a third party. The father here should still have the right to raise this child. Rick Czarnota from Calgary, writes: The problem I have with this case is twofold:

1) This is yet another decision where the rights of the biological father are marginalized; one would be crucified to suggest a woman who is only an 'adequate' mother should be denied parental custody. Every excuse is made to keep the child with the mother, and every excuse is made to keep children from their fathers.

2) The adoptive parents have been granted full why are they pursuing the father for child support payments. I fully support men paying child support in the case of the mother raising the child by herself. However in this case all of the father's rights have been denied and the guardians have adopted the child and assumed full custody. The courts are even denying the father any chance of seeing the child during the first year. If the guardians are going to assume full custodial rights then they can buck up and pay the full cost. In this case the father has been reduced to an anonymous sperm donor and should not held liable for child support. Jay Freed from Toronto, Canada writes: To all those who say this is in the 'best interest of the child':

We don't simply take children from poor parents and plop them down into wealthy families because it's 'in the best interests of the child'.

If we did, we'd have an awful lot of poor, childless couples living in this country.

Absurd. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: It's time for Fathers, and advocates for justice and equality to swarm these corrupt courts in protest and shut them down.

How many fathers must be abused before we stand up for basic rights and human equality?

How many children must be stolen from their parents by these state institutions?

Historians of slavery have pointed out that the most painful thing endured by slaves was that their children were taken from them.

How vile is that? Sal Gillespie from Canada writes: Disgusting. Makes me disgusted to be Canadian. This judge should be removed from the bench, the adoptive parents should be ASHAMED of themselves for suing for support. Matthew A. MacDonald from Halifax, Canada writes: What right could this child's adoptive parents possibly have to monetary support from the biological father? There seems to be little basis for denying the biological father custody, or at least access to his child, and without at least one of these basic rights, compassion and justice demand that he not have to pay one red cent to the people who have forcibly denied him the right to raise his child 'adequately.' How cruel indeed for the courts to say: we know you can provide 'adequately' for your child's needs, and we know you desperately want custody of your child, but we have determined that, not only can you not have custody, but you cannot even see your child for a year. But, don't worry, you can still support your child monetarily! What a load of rubbish. Alberto Nunez from Toronto, Canada writes: This is a complete travesty. Reading the judgement, it is clear the judge is reducing the father's rights to zero. Being 'adequate' appears to no longer be in the 'best interest of the child'. Based on this conclusion, there would be many children being forcibly placed into adoption.

This case stinks of class prejudice. There are pages of background on the father and his troubled family, but little on the adopting parents, who are obviously much better off than the father. I guess if you have means and money you can better serve the interests of the child (just ask the Kennedy and Bush families).

I hope the father has an avenue for appealing this decision. They guy is only 34 and trying to get his life together. He is trying to 'fight the good fight' and be a responsible parent. Who's to say he won't succeed? The judge and his crystal ball?

It truly confounds me that people who read the case thing the judgement is a good one! These folks must basically agree that any one with money and an education MUST be a better parent. Riducluous.

Why can't the Turners adopt a child that is unwanted by BOTH PARENTS! Haven't they got anything better to do with their time and $$?? Craig Cooper fromToronto, writes: Once again, the courts' inherent bias against men is revealed for all the world to see S T from Canada writes: 'The guardians have already given the baby their surname and are seeking child-support payments from the father, the court heard.'
Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One of their arguments was the adoptive parents would be able to better provide for the baby due to their financial security and stability. I believe the father should support his children, but in this case, I do not think the guardians have that right to seek support payments. The father was not deemed an unfit father, just not-as-good as the other parents. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Anyone know of a good Fathers and Mens rights not-for-profit advocacy group? When I find one, I'll be leaving a large donation in my will, so that maybe my son and grandchildren with be treated as equal citizens one day.

This corruption in Canada must stop, and it's going to take money to defeat the monsters that are stealing children and pushing the status of men below the status of dogs.

There's no justice without equality before the law! And there should be no peace without justice! Don Wilson from Debert, Canada writes: If the Real Father wants to take this to the Supreme Court of canada , I'll donate to that cost. Perhaps that will stick the Saskatchewan judge back in the 19th century hole that he must live in. Readers Digest has a spot they publish these really strange decisions at - someone send this one to them so that more can see what a ---- the judge is. the Turners should be suing the mother and the judge for support - it was her that gave up the child in the first place and the judge that commanded it be so , not the father Boy Tigas from Mississauga,Ontario, Canada writes: There you go....another example of political correctness! These judges thought that they've done this child a big favour. Wait, sorry...I just have to bang my head on the wall on this decision. They think that all men are incapable of taking such responsibility like this Cory Eng from Cold Lake, Canada writes: As a father of two amazing kids this type of decision makes me VERY skeptical of the supposed sober-thought provided by our judiciary. I have watched for years the questionable judgements passed down upon well-meaning fathers. This man needs to appeal if he truely wants to be this childs father. There is no reason why a child should be denied access to a father the judge said to be a capable parent.

I am still shaking my head Cut The Crap from Canada writes: Don Wilson,

Thanks for the excellent idea!

I, too, will donate to help support a supreme court challenge of this case Kevin H from Calgary, Canada writes: This is truly a sad day for men - very dangerous case law being created here - we help bring kids into this world, pay for them all our lives, but when we want to assume our responsibility over the product of our body- we have NO rights???

Men can only hope that the Conservatives will pick up on this mess and make some real legal changes - and maybe by doing so, the Conservatives may just find more than a few votes from Men who would otherwise vote for another party - just a thought S W from Canada writes: How is it possible that the guardians are able to acquire custody support? It seems wrong that he should have to pay support, especially when denied access. I thought in regards to adoption, it was necessary for both parents to give up their parental rights. If he now does not have these rights, then why the hell should he have to pay?

Such a confusing situation that i hope is never used as precedent in any other case. Kurt Luzny from Vancouver, Canada writes: What a horrible, horrible situation. That the Turners 'present' themselves as loving the child 'as their own' yet are denying the father his parental role and rights, yet seeking to have him pay child support makes it clear that the Turners cannot provide for the child 'as their own', emotionally or financially. Any right minded parent would seek, and only present themselves as fit if they could support the child independently. That they could be willing to cause such anguish to the father of the child shows that they are not emotionally sound and therefore probably lacking in the full emotional resource needed to raise a balanced child. What a trully stupid decision!Anthony Price from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Hmmm, it seems only in Canada could a bilological father be forced from seeing his child, yet still have to pay child support to adoptive parents, presumably who had the financial resources to be considered suitable parents in the first place.... MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: Look, I don't understand why so many can use the internet to read an article and post about it, yet fail to know how to google around for more information to fill in the details. The publication ban came very late in this case, so if you look around the net, you will easily find articles archived in National Post -- maybe even here -- with full names and photos. And if you find those, you will see the father is NOT aboriginal. The mother, on the other hand, is aboriginal through her father's bloodline, not her mother's. The mother denied knowing who the father was when she 'gave' (or sold) the baby to the Prince Albert couple and the judgement -- which is linked right next to this article -- states she didn't think it could be his child because of his accident years before, and she had 'relations' with several men during the interim between breaking up with the father, and discovering she was pregnant. Nor has the baby been officially adopted -- the new parents and biological mother have some sort of contracted agreement. Given her spurious nature, they can only hope she doesn't show up to collect her baby one of these days. And for those of you who want to put your money where your mouths are and offer financial support to the father to go to a higher court -- well, I believe his lawyer is appearing in court in Saskatoon tomorrow, so why don't you call him? Seems to me if you angry fathers are looking for a statement, this should be an easy one to make -- and you'd think an easy case to win. Probably couldn't afford as good of lawyers as the adoptive parents could... Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow that's unbelievable, the poor fellow never had a chance. First he got kicked in the groin by the woman, then while he's on the ground some more by the (in)justice system, and then spat on by the guardians who want child support payment. How can all those people look at themselves in the mirror in the morning? Revolting Le Malbadon from Canada writes: Reading back stories on this article, with the mothers 'sister' being associated with the adoption agency, indications of a 'payment' made when the unemployed mother suddenly bought a brand new car weeks after the adoption, I find everything about this case shameful on everyones part except the fathers; who ends up getting shafted for a child he actually WANTS. I have no respect for fathers who run away from their responsility, this guy actually wanted the responsibility.

I am more concerned by the precident this sets. A woman could find out she is pregnant after breaking up with someone and realize she can now completely avoid any kind of custody battle by hiding the pregnancy till birth, declare lack of knowledge of the father, and have family friends adopt the child. The mother now has the best of all worlds, the father has no hope of gaining the child should he ever discover he was a father, even if he would have easily won a custody battle between the two parents for being the better child, because he can't compete with the adoptive family.
Even worse now if these guys also win the child support claim, the ultimate coup-de-gras a father who honestly wanted and could have raised his flesh and blood child. Don Mathis from Sherman, Texas, United States writes: OK, the courts refuse to uphold the father's rights to his child.
Well, how about the courts punish the mother for her deceit? Steve Martin from Canada writes: The best interest of the child eh? Why not take all children from single parent families and give them to two parent families, in the interest of the children? I've seen what single mom's can do to children. I've also been through the familiy law industry. It just about killed me and tortured my three daughters. It's all about the rights of the mother, the choice of the mother, and the profit of greedy lawyers. To hell with anyone else involved. Do I sound bitter? You bet I am, sorry about that. Things are better for me now, but this kind of story just brings back all the pain. It also shows that things aren't going to get better any time soon, and it's usually the children that suffer most. Just ask Senator Anne Cools about The joint Senate-Commons Report 'For the Sake of the Children' (shelved by the Chretien Government) You (Allan Buteau, from Redwater, Canada) wrote: I am wondering if all those who support this decission are prepared to give up custody of their children to someone with more money and who might be better able to provide a better life for your child(ren)?

This Dad was shown to be an adequate Parent and in the eyes of the Law we can not receive a higher then adequate parent rating.

I have followed this case closely and what you don't read is how the Lawyer for the Adoptive Parents did everything under the sun to delay this matter being heard. This Dad fought tooth and nail for his son and overcame every road block that the adoptive Lawyer put before him.

That alone shows more commitment then any Court should or can deny. I am Supporting an appael and pledge $$$.$$ towards his cause. What's next? Are these White Adoptive Parents now going to claim 'First Nation Status' and claim treaty rights? kim sorensen from Vancouver, Canada writes: The more I read background articles today, the more outraged I become. Denying a child the right to know ones parent is just wrong, regardless of where the child resides.

1) To the Harper government - correct a long overdue wrong and implement the joint Senate/Commons report now!

2) To the father -To the G&M - provide detail on how one can donate to this appeal fund.

4) To everyone as bothered as I am - Contact your MP about this very dangerous decision and demand the implementation of the For the Sake fo the Children recommendations that Chretien scrapped.

Denying a child the love of a parent is simply wrong. Children can never have too many people that love them, and to forbid a [adequate] father to even see or hold his child is something you expect out of an uncivilized

Outrageous. Whodat Singer from St. Catharines, Canada writes: There are a couple of things here

1. Wasn't it not that long ago that he courts said a child could have three parents
2. If the father is being sued for support why isn't ther mother. My guess is that the adoptive parents would drop the acse if the father backs off. Also if these people are better parents because they have the resources then why do they need to sue for support? Kathy Diane from Canada writes: This is absurd. Sure, the guy may have some faults - previous alcohol problems, previous relationship difficulties.... SO WHAT? Are we going to start testing every prospective mother and father to see if they are perfect role models, and if not, give their baby to someone else that's perceived by the courts to be better parents? That's what this equivalent is. This man is willing and able to raise his own son. Unless it's shown that this man absolutely is NOT fit to be a father, then it's a no-brainer, the kid should be with the father. If the father is absolutely NOT fit, then one year of family calm to give the baby a chance to bond with these baby robbers shouldn't help make him more fit. Dog's Best Friend from Canada writes: The die is cast. With the delivery of a decision all rights of a biological parent can be stripped away by the whim of the state. Except of course that financial obligation. This court decision is straight out of George Orwell and may have ominous ramifications for our society's future. Those jurists however did leave one window of opportunity for the biological father to fulfill. That of being simply a wallet to plunder at the mercy of the court.
There must be something is our cherished charter of rights and freedoms to provide protection and remedy from this further incursion into social engineering. This move will not strengthen families. It will only serve to dictate who has rights over flesh and blood. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: For anybody interested in real names of people involved in this miscarriage of justice here is link.

Just one look at the picture of the father is enough to realize what kind of a hatchet and a smear job was done in this case. Cut The Crap from Canada writes:Very good link Karol,

This was a corrupt scam people, read about it yourself at Karol's link.

DIGUSTING DOGS HAVE PERPETRATED THIS PERVERSION OF JUSTICE Cut The Crap from Canada writes: The nerve of these monsters, refering to the father as 'just a sperm donor.'

xxxxxx xxxxxx, aka adoptive parent, aka disgusting child thief and extortionist, you are 'just a wallet', you will be 'just a taxi driver', 'just a diaper changer', but mostly...

just a child abductor who learned a sneaky way to use the law against an honest man.

SHAME ON YOU xxxxxx xxxxxx Cut The Crap from Canada writes: And shame on you too xxxxx xxxxxx-xxxxxx, for stealing another man's child when you couldn't have one of your own. Cut The Crap from Canada writes: And on the remote possibility that the ONE TRUE FATHER of xxxx is reading:

Be strong and tenacious. Stronger than you ever thought you could be.

One day xxxx will be an adult.
One day xxxx will know how hard you fought to be with him.
One day xxxx will know the dirty tricks used to keep you two apart.
One day xxxx will know that the Canadian courts tried to keep you apart.

There is no love like a father's love. Helen Pettingill from Canada writes: I just read that link posted by Karol.
This is truly a sad day for fathers & people who don't have the cash to hire expensive lawyers. Not one thing about that ruling is fair. xxxx & his biological father absolutely deserve to be with each other. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: This just in;
Final judgment in the xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxx case can be found on the Law Society of Saskatchewan's website at

Stepping back, the bio mom (xxxxxx xxxxx) swore in affidavit in Smith's court that xxxxxxxxxxx was the father of the child, completely contradicting the custody agreement and causing a warning of contempt from Justice Smith. (This fact is vacant from his judgment)

It should be noted that xxxxxxxxxxx's morning visit was cancelled and the xxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx (a.k.a. Turner) contacted the access service and cancelled any and all subsequent visits, making it loud and clear their intent on the full disposal of the bio dad! Dwight Stirrett from Kelowna, Canadawrites: It is clear from this story that men in Canada have few parental rights. Men appear to be bread winners and that is about it. Did you catch the last sentence in the story? Not only did the father lose custody to strangers because the Turners are well educated and have a nice big yard, but the Father has to pay child support as well. Ouch. Loose a child and pay support. Nice! If we do nothing as a collective group to stop this type of abuse to our children then expect this type of result. if the roles were reversed and a woman had lost her child because a Father gave it up for adoption (can you imagine) it would be covered on the news hourly with woman and picket lines galore. Where are the men in this country? Why don't we stand together? Why do backward, socialist, elitist Judges get away with these type of judgements? Because we let them, we do nothing. Nikki Patterson from LondonToronto, Canada writes: Dwight,

The adoptive parents are seeking support payments, but they have not yet won support paymnets.

You are wrong about the situation being decided differently if it were the mother. That simply isn't true. The courts are full of cases where women lose in situations like this. Read the judgment and you will see examples of such cases.

There are plenty of women of lower economic status with low levels of education that fight to keep custody of their children on a regular basis. In many instances they do not prevail. tori scott from Canada writes: I have never been so ashamed of my gender as I am now. This is not right. Men-fathers- SHOULD have the same rights as the woman in regards to the child. Sure, it's the woman's body that carries the child, but the sperm did not get in there via immaculate conception- as much as the feminists in this country would love us to believe. I can't understand how this woman(xxxxxx) could knowingly steal another person's baby when she can not have one of her own. I realize that not being able to conceive can crush you, but that does not give you the right to take another man's child, drag his name thru the mud, and then ask for child support payments. This sets a horrible precident. "Adequate" parenting is not good enough. One must have the $$$ to be "above adequate" a parent? Do we now test people who want to be parents if they are "acceptable"? Guess what? Money does not guarantee a happy home- all it does is guarantee that the kids will have things. Love costs NOTHING. There are many people who make more than me- but I can tell you one thing- NONE of them could love and protect my children better than me. After reading the links, there is no doubt that money changed hands here. And to the person who said that having a child psychologist as a parent automatically makes this person a "better" parent- here's news: most people who go into psychology usually do so because they have issues that they are trying to work out and get answers to. So not necessariliy better at all. So, xxxxxxs, if you are reading this- SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!! D F from Sask, Canada writes: I'm having a hard time with this decision. The last sentence espeically blows me away - am I correct that the wonderful loving new parents are actually seeking child support from the father? Why not the natural mother? If they can be such grand parents and want to shut out the natural father, surely they can afford to care for the kid? I'm all for doing what's right for the child, but this screams of old fashioned injustice for the father. corey king from Grand Falls-Windsor, writes: The family has given the child their surname, and are seeking child support from the father? If the parents legally adopted this can they possibly even fathom asking for parental support from the biological father. This is the must ludacris thing I have ever heard! Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: i had an adopted friend when i was younger. she grew up in one of the most loving households i have ever come acroos. she was beautiful, intelligent, motivated, and popular. in short she had what everyone else wanted. her adoptive parents were extremely well off, and had several other adopted children. however, once she was finished highschool she had a strong desire to find her birth mother. she was not able to do so. the failure to find her left my friend depressed and confused. she lost her job, gained weight, and married and abusive boyfriend. i havent heard from her since, though not for lack of trying to contact her. i guess my point is this: even should the adoptive parents keep this child, to cut the father out of the picture completly can be just as damaging to a child as being in the middle of an ugle custody battle. this couple should drop the support payments line, and allow visitation rights to the biological father. at least, if theyre really concerned with the well-being of the child. something im still questioning M C from Toronto, Canada writes: Ok, I will write my piece of mind here as the rest of us have done. Unfortuneatly it will not make much of an impact yet I, like many of you feel compelled to atleast voice my opinion. This, and cases like this, really boil my blood. Only sometimes it seems does the legal system actually help those (children and parents alike) in need. Usually it makes a mockery of what the world has known as family, generally because a judge is a person who has devoted their life to the Justice system and has never been around to actually raise their own children. They have spent minute after minute, year after year in pursuit of knowledge and legal wisdom but as they have done this they have neglected their families and friends. Oh I am sure many will disagree and that is great, it shows me you can think for yourself, I personally don't care though, it's my opinion. Now, back to this case. Multiple things, a judge has decided the direction of life for this little boy Ian, and the direction of life for his real father. I will never ask or expect a dime from the bio-dad (he does not even slightly wish to see my son whome I adopted when I married his mother), nor will I accept it. I took on the responsibility of being the dad and thus took on the responsibility of all that comes with it. I ask, aside from the verdict, aside from Ian's real fathers pain and fight to keep custody and raise his child... HOW DARE THIS FAMILY (Turner's) expect Ian's Biological father to give them money to raise HIS child when he is capable, WILLING, and able to do it. If they want that responsibility, then they must accept the whole responsibility! What is wrong with these people, and why do think think they can judge this man as a father when they have not given him a chance to even be one? And aside from that, have the audasity to change his last name in a seeming atempt at erasing the real father? Disgraceful!!! Robert Luedeman from Philistia, United States writes: I do not know whether anyone has posted a link to the decision but it can be seen at

www dot lawsociety dot sk dot ca/ for January 29

It's well worth a look to get a grip on the issues. We've struggled with the same issue here in the states in a similar case, that of Baby Jessica back in 1993.

Clearly, the bootleg adoption should never have happened at the beginning. A child is not a sack of potatoes to be bargained and sold away. However, it did happen, and the child has been well treated. Essentially though, the father has been divested of his right to have a substantial relationship with his child, without the sort of due process that would have been his right here in this state. He could not have had his rights terminated here in Iowa as he does not meet any of the statutory grounds.

What's dangerous about this precedent is that it legitimates bootleg adoptions with a species of squatter's rights that need a rethink Lowen Wrainger fromCanada writes: Now more than ever I am convinced that our judicial system and the appointed judges who preside are really out of touch with human beings. I don't want to use the phrase 'common sense' because that has been mis-used often enough. Come on now. This is the child's REAL LIVE father who exists. Does this now set a precedent whereby adoptee-money buys the child of your dreams? Bill Smith from San Diego, United States writes: The last line says it all. "The guardians have already given the baby their surname and are seeking child-support payments from the father, ..."

Canada must have the most vicious anti-father social policy of any
country in the world. Barry Kojima from Hamilton, ON, Canada writes: This 'educated' and 'financially secure' couple are now seeking support payments?!?

This has got to be rock bottom for our Family law system Think Again from Canada writes: A difficult case and likely the best interests of the child were served. Nevertheless, it epitomizes the blatantly anti-male sexism of the family justice system and of family court judges in Canada. If the mother wanted to keep the child, her interests would certainly prevail over the child's. A father has one and only one right in Canada - he has the right to write cheques. god bless canada from Canada writes: this is just a cash of the highest bidder winning .i am sure the adoptave parents probubly have a home and maby more cash than the father. but money does not make a good family this child should be with the father. i am sure if the roles were reversed and the mother wanted the baby there would be a public outcry and she would end up with the baby .why do fathers have no rights when it comes to there babys. the only time the courts say the father has rights is when the courts want the father to pay for something so i guess in canada the only rights a father has is to a bank .sad story keep on fighting sir you deserve you baby back Carrie-Ann K from Ottawa, Canada writes: I do not understand how the awarded couple can seek out child support. It's an adoption and the child is no longer with its mother. They are greedy and disgusting if they pursue this. alen . from Canada writes: The child is the father's. If there are charges to be placed on him for mistreating the child, or grounds to remove the child from him; then that should happen, and those claims should be processed to determine their veracity.

That didn't happen. The child was taken from him without him even knowing his child existed. And the courts are playing along.

This decision is sick. Just sick c rob from Halifax, Canada writes: So if I understand this all correctly, a father's desire to take care of his own child is worthless under the law. The mother, who gave her child up, gets to see the child, and this guy has to stay away, but pay child support nonetheless? This can't be real folks. April Fool's Day must have come early.
You show me a perfect parent. Go ahead I dare you. Obviously in this country, an income level that has some sort of professional title assigned to it, is the ticket to successful parenting.
I'm going home to hug my child and give an even greater hug to the Daddy. I had no idea just how pathetic this nation had become towards a father.
APPEAL Chucka Lapolus from Sakatoon, Canada writes: Sounds like Canadians have a choice to make, whether they wish to further tolerate this type of perverse government involvement in determining what is best for the children of this country, or to mobilize and let their government know this type of assault on the Canadian family will not be tolerated and every effort will be exhausted in the preservation of NATURAL relationship between parent and child. The test for ""the best interest of the child"" is a miserable failure; it results in the severing of a parent/child relationship for no reason other than a stranger entering the ''temple'' and being awarded that child based primarily on financial holdings and dumb luck in not having skeletons exposed. The system is tyrannical and socially unbearable. Determining ''the best interest of the child'', now, far surpasses traditional ''pissing matches'' between mommy and daddy. The conventional method was once fought between two true donors, spectators'' idly watched, but, not anymore. Spectators are allowed to enter the theater with the same arsenal once reserved for mommy. The real sickening part is that some of the populace condones this government intervention. Society has become complacent in allowing government to manipulate us to accept complete strangers to have more parental rights than natural parents. This baby WILL grow to discover how daddy fought tooth and nail for baby''s inherent right, to further discover how the PA parents manipulated a willing system to strip his identity, and in the creation of a new one, dispose of daddy''s involvement. The psychological trauma associated with this discovery will be forever remembered, surpassing trauma associated with the baby immediately removed from his current environment. This case clearly illustrates the step-by-step process in a third party illegally attaining custody of a child with impunity from a socially retarded government. gordon foster from Canada writes: What baffles me is why a 'financially secure and educated' couple would even consider seeking 'child support' payments from the biological father of their adopted child who has just been denied all of his parental rights by a court order Jenny C from Toronto, Canada writes: This is absolutely appalling. This makes no sense on how the father is not allowed to have custody of his own child when he was not even aware he was the father until just before the birth. I think this is unfair to the father and the child because it has taken away all of the possibility for this baby to learn who his real father is at a young age and therefore bond with him as such. I am just as upset by the comment made at the end of the article stating that the couple is now seeking child support from the father. This is obsurd! First they take the child from him (with or without knowledge originally) and now he is expected to give them child support, I thought they were better off financially and that is part of the reason the child is with them. Give this guy a break! robert marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: The family justice system of canada ... we existance to screw the man.