Of course you won't waste your time, you know you are wrong and you can not answer the questions without proving you're wrong, so why bother wasting your time admitting your failure?
Ok, I get that.
Good call. Not much of a debater though are ya?
Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Ok, I get that.
Good call. Not much of a debater though are ya?
This example was a true event. I could not post the details and names, because there was a gage order. But it all worked out about how one would figure, the man lost. Nothing like the same ol same ol.
Biological father loses Sask. custody case
Last Updated: Monday, January 29, 2007 | 1:09 PM CT
CBC News
The biological father of a baby boy whose mother gave him to another couple will not get custody of the child, a Saskatchewan judge has decided.
Instead, in a case that made headlines across the country last year and attracted the interest of fathers'-rights advocates, the boy will stay with the couple with whom he has been living since he was born, Queen's Bench Justice Shawn Smith ruled Monday.
The decision was a vindication, the lawyer representing the couple said, while for the father, it was a crushing blow.
"I wasn't trying to win father-of-the-year award or anything like that. I was just trying to be a father," the man said, adding he's unsure if he'll appeal the court's decision.
In his 35-page decision, Smith said he decided "without hesitation" the boy's best interests are with the couple that wants to adopt the now nine-month-old.
"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," Smith said.
// '); // ]]>
The judge also said the parties should get together to allow the father some access to the child.
During the custody trial in Saskatoon late last year, court heard the father never cohabited with the mother, but briefly had an intimate relationship with her. The relationship ended following an incident in which the man had been drinking alcohol and struck her, court was told.
When she learned she was pregnant, she made arrangements for the couple in another Saskatchewan community to take custody of the child. The woman felt she couldn't raise the child herself and said she didn't know the man was the father, having been told previously he was sterile.
The couple, described in the court decision as "educated, mature and well-grounded" people, now hope to adopt the baby boy.
The father found out about the plan shortly before the child was born and applied to the court for sole custody. He obtained a DNA test that proved he was the father.
The boy's grandmother offered a third option to the courts. She said she should have custody to ensure that the boy is raised in a way that respects his First Nations heritage. She didn't want the child raised by a non-biological family.
Under a court order, the names of the people involved in the case cannot be published.
Allegations were flying on both sides during the trial, including a suggestion the couple paid the mother. The judge said there was no evidence of that.
'Unfolding lives of real people'
"Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong," Smith said in the decision.
"Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people."
Dale Blenner-Hassett, the lawyer representing the family that has been granted custody of the boy, said the ruling serves as vindication for the family.
"It means that they've been essentially cleared by the judicial system of any wrongdoing that had been alleged against them," Blenner-Hassett said. "The decision is very clear in the court's view of our clients and who they are — good decent people that they are — and the kind of home that they can provide to their son."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/01/29/custody.html?ref=rss
My first opinion would be to give the biological father his child, BUT, we don't know enough about this
particular situation, and I would "hope" the judge, after residing over this case, has made a fair
and proper decision for the "CHILD', and the father, it seems, will have visitation rights, and the
child will grow up to know his biological father, and spend time with him too.
particular situation, and I would "hope" the judge, after residing over this case, has made a fair
and proper decision for the "CHILD', and the father, it seems, will have visitation rights, and the
child will grow up to know his biological father, and spend time with him too.
Just a thought..
I've heard recently that medical advances have made it possible to determine whether ones child will be born gay, leading to the possibility that people may abort their child for this reason. What do you people think the fallout for these actions will be? Will the fundamentalists be for this because "God hates Gays" or against it because "God hates abortions". Will the Left support a womans right to choose over gay rights, or vice versa?
I've heard recently that medical advances have made it possible to determine whether ones child will be born gay, leading to the possibility that people may abort their child for this reason. What do you people think the fallout for these actions will be? Will the fundamentalists be for this because "God hates Gays" or against it because "God hates abortions". Will the Left support a womans right to choose over gay rights, or vice versa?
Oh, it isn't possible yet, but scientists predict it will be in a few decades. Of course, by that time we'll be part of the Islamic Claiphate of Canuckistan, so it won't really matter.
i doubt what you say is true.
i also doubt that gayness will be detectable that easily. scientists like to make wild claims, i should know, i am one. thing about a good wild claim is it gets you publicity which often gets you grant money
i also doubt that gayness will be detectable that easily. scientists like to make wild claims, i should know, i am one. thing about a good wild claim is it gets you publicity which often gets you grant money
This is actually very unusual (for adoptive parents to get preference over biological parents). How many other cases have happened that way barring serious parental fitness issues? I'm thinking there has to have been some very compelling reasons why this man wasn't awarded custody. Perhaps the fact that he has a history of drinking and then hitting his girlfriend had something to do with it? I also wonder why she would think he was sterile? This is a very odd case. Hopefully this is in the best interest of the child.
Reading another article about this case, the judge claimed the main concern wasn't the father, it was the child. I feel bad for the father, but I do think the child's interest is more important. The father's history of alcohol abuse, unlawful conduct and his other children from previous relationships apparently all had an impact on the judge's ruling as well. It's entirely possible he could be a great father in spite of his past (I've seen dads turn it around before), but it's also possible the child is better off with the family he's been raised by since birth.
Last edited: