.bmp)
.bmp)
AN unwilling father who wished to contract out his parental duties, with the backing of his common-law wife,has been rebuffed by Canada's Supreme Court.According to court officials,the unidentified woman hoped to have a baby but her common-law husband did not want to care for it.They agreed in writing that she would be responsible for raising the child,conceived through artificial insemination, and that she would have sole custody.But Canadian law makes both parents responsible for child-rearing.In this case,even though he is not the child's biological father,he is considered the de facto father because he is in a common-law relationship with the mother.The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court decision voiding a contract absolving John Doe of parental onus.By convention, the court did not explain its decision.The couple had unsuccessfully argued that John Doe should not be legally required to parent when it is against his wishes. The Alberta Court of Appeal in February wrote: "Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? When it stumbles?When the soother needs to be replaced? When the diaper needs to be changed?'' "John Doe's subjective intent not to assume a parental role will inevitably yield to the needs of the child in the same household. Were it otherwise, one can only imagine the emotional damage visited upon the child.'' The child was born in August 2005.http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22066971-401,00.html
PS:I always wonder why in the world does a woman want to have a child with a guy that doesn't want to marry her(that right there should ring a bell....)doesn't want to commit to NOTHING with her ?Everything is upside down now-a-days...Now she is still"common-law-wife,she got artificially inseminated,had a baby and the guy doesn't wanna have anything to do with the poor child....IS THIS NORMAL????or am I missing something here???
As in the days of Noah...
