| Darren Bernhardt
CanWest News Service; Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Thursday, October 26, 2006
SASKATOON - A Saskatoon dad involved in an unusual custody case began weeping in court Wednesday upon learning he will soon see and hold his infant son for the very
first time.
''When he's in my arms, that's when I'll know for sure it's really happening,'' he said in an interview.
A judge hearing the case at Court of Queen's Bench ordered the visitation to occur as soon as possible, citing the child's developmental stage as being at a point where it will
begin making attachments to people.
A custody trial must still determine who will raise the boy, but Justice J.A. Ryan-Froslie said the dad has waited long enough.
''The best interests of the child requires immediate action,'' she said, prompting the dad and his supporters to exhale loudly and cry in joy.
Although the names of everyone involved in the case have been published in previous stories, a publication ban was imposed Wednesday because of the personal matters
involved.
The father learned just weeks before the child's birth that he was the father. He was tipped off by an anonymous caller, who identified himself as a member of the mother's
family.
A DNA test proved his paternity but the birth mother, who didn't want the child and claimed the father was unknown, had already arranged for a Prince Albert, Sask., couple to
adopt the child. Because the dad never lived with the baby's mother and their relationship was ''transitory,'' she did not need his permission, said lawyer Dale Blenner-Hassett,
who represents the Prince Albert couple.
The couple did not attend Wednesday's proceedings.
Expressing urgency to move the process along, Ryan-Froslie ordered the two sides involved in the custody dispute to promptly go into another room to set a trial date for the
custody matter. By doing so, she bypassed the usual step of holding a pre-trial conference.
Within 20 minutes, Dec. 18 was set for the start of arguments.
''We're finally getting things done,'' said the father.
The man was awarded visitation rights by another judge on Oct. 4, with meetings to occur at a children's shelter in Prince Albert. However, no meetings have taken place and
both sides have blamed the other for various reasons.
Ryan-Froslie changed the meeting venue to Saskatoon because of possible perceived bias on the part of the shelter, known as Children's Haven. The couple who currently
have custody have a connection to the facility, as the woman had served on the board and made regular financial donations.
Saskatoon StarPhoenix
SASKATOON (Oct 27, 2006)
A judge has ordered that a Saskatoon father embroiled in a custody battle should get to see his infant son for the first time as soon as possible.
The father began weeping after Justice J.A. Ryan-Froslie ordered the visitation occur quickly, saying the child is at a developmental stage where he is starting to
form attachments.
"When he's in my arms, that's when I'll know for sure it's really happening," the father said.
A custody trial must still determine who will raise the baby, but Ryan-Froslie said the best interests of the child require immediate action.
A publication ban on the identities of those involved has been imposed.
The man learned just weeks before the child's birth that he was the father. He was tipped off by an anonymous caller, who identified himself as a member of the
mother's family.
A DNA test proved his paternity but the birth mother, who didn't want the child and claimed the father was unknown, had already arranged for a couple in
Prince Albert, Sask., to adopt the child.
A lawyer who represents the adoptive couple said the mother did not need the father's permission because he never lived with the mother and their relationship
was "transitory."
Custody battle example of need to change views
The StarPhoenix
Published: Saturday, October 28, 2006
It's a fine example of the state of today's society when a man who wants to be a father to his child is not even allowed to have a say in what the child's mother
does with the baby.
In this case, the mother wrongly declared the father of the baby as unknown and put the child up for adoption. Now the father has to fight a court battle against
the adoptive parents even to get to see his child, let alone obtain custody.
The expenses for the court actions will be paid for by the father and on top of that, the adoptive parents are seeking child support. Meanwhile, they do not want
the biological father to get the boy to call him "Daddy," and they are fighting about even whether or not the father should get visitation rights!
How is this situation acceptable? It is far past time for people not only to realize that men are not always "deadbeat dads" but to demand that the playing field
be levelled. Far too many courts today treat the mother always as an angel and the father as evil. This is not always true and must be changed.
Bruce Beilhartz
Saskatoon
Appeal prevents city man from seeing infant for first time
Lana Haight
The StarPhoenix
Saturday, October 28, 2006
A Saskatoon dad who expected to hold his six-month-old son for the first time this morning will likely go for coffee instead.
The dad, who cannot be identified because of a publication ban, fought back tears Friday night as he thought about the visitation ordered earlier this week by
the courts, but cancelled at the last minute because of an appeal.
"We'll go to Tim Hortons and get coffee, go for a drive," said the man's fiancee as she comforted him as they sat in their lawyer's office.
Those involved in the case cannot be identified, even though their names have been published previously.
"This is the second time that I was promised that I would get to see my son," said the dad.
"When a judge says that I get to see my son, I should get to see him."
The man and his fiancee had been worrying since Wednesday, when they won the right to see the baby boy every Saturday morning in Saskatoon, that this
morning's visit would be cancelled.
The baby has been in the custody of a Prince Albert couple since he was born in late April. The man's former girlfriend gave the baby up for adoption. She did
not want to raise the child and claimed the father's identity was unknown. The dad learned of the baby through an anonymous tip from someone who said he
was a member of the birth mother's family. Even though a DNA test has proven the man is the baby's biological father, he has not seen his son.
A bitter and public custody battle between the dad and his fiancee, and the Prince Albert couple has ensued.
On Oct. 4, Saskatoon family court Judge Sean Smith ordered the man and his fiancee be allowed supervised weekly visits with his son at Children's Haven in
Prince Albert. No meetings have taken place, with both sides blaming the other for various reasons.
The Prince Albert couple subsequently requested child support from the dad.
On Wednesday, another family court judge, J.A. Ryan-Froslie, ordered the weekly visits begin today and in Saskatoon. Ryan-Froslie changed the venue because
of a possible perceived bias on the part of the Children's Haven. The couple who currently have custody have links to the facility. Ryan-Froslie's order also
states that the dad is free to hold his boy, kiss him and take his photo, as long as the pictures are not published or given to the media. As well, the Prince Albert
couple cannot be present during the visits.
The first visit was arranged for this morning. That was until the dad received a phone call Friday at suppertime from Family Justice Services, the government
agency responsible for organizing the meeting.
On Friday, the lawyer for the Prince Albert couple filed a notice of appeal of Wednesday's judgment with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Regina. A
judgment usually cannot be enforced while a case is under appeal.
"We're appealing on the basis that the honourable justice did not have the authority to make the order that she did," said the couple's lawyer, Dale
Blenner-Hassett, in a telephone interview.
"There was an obligation upon (the dad) to show the court that there had been a material change in circumstances between the 4th and 25th, which is what the
judge needed to tinker with Mr. Justice Smith's order."
The Oct. 25 judgment doesn't "tinker" with the earlier court order, according to the dad's lawyer.
"(Ryan-Froslie) was not varying the interim order, but simply implementing it. It only clarifies it and gives it effect. The second order provides greater
specificity around visits, but the essence of it is that it is implementing the earlier order. It's still the father's weekly visits," said Mark Vanstone.
Blenner-Hassett said the dad is welcome to come to Prince Albert to see the baby at Children's Haven as early as Monday, but that the couple will not bring the
baby to Saskatoon.
"We've got a six-month old baby that has a certain schedule and to be travelling two hours there and two hours back, to be there early in the morning . . . if we
are considering the best interests of the child, that wouldn't be something that would be convenient for the child," said Blenner-Hassett.
Vanstone finds that argument somewhat amusing.
"(The dad) does not wish to inconvenience his son in any way. Most likely he would just snooze (in the vehicle)," he said.
Vanstone has other plans for Monday. He'll be in Saskatoon's Court of Queen's Bench requesting a hearing before Ryan-Froslie.
"This particular decision contains a provision that provides that if there are any problems carrying out the terms of the order, there's an opportunity to reconvene
and we're going to pursue that in order to clarify the status of the matter," said Vanstone.
lhaight@sp.canwest.com
Darren Bernhardt
Saskatchewan News Network; CanWest News Service
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
SASKATOON -- A bitter custody battle for a six-month-old boy is taking its financial toll.
A trust fund has been set up to assist the child's biological father, who has been fighting since the birth to see and hold his son. The baby has been in the
custody of a Prince Albert couple since he was born in late April.
The birth mother gave the child up for adoption, saying the father's identity was unknown.
"It's a fight that's draining me. But there isn't anything that I own that wouldn't be up for sale to keep me going," said the man, who cannot be named due to a
court-imposed publication ban.
"They've got my son. My possessions mean nothing."
He learned of the baby through an anonymous tip from a member of the birth mother's family. A DNA test has confirmed he is the father, but the contract
between the mother and adoptive parents has made him the odd man out.
The adoptive parents have since given the baby their surname and are seeking child-support payments from the father.
The RCMP's general investigations section in Saskatoon had been collecting information from the parties involved in the battle to determine whether any
wrongdoing was involved. The file is now being forwarded to Saskatoon Police Service.
"We will review it and determine what course of action to take," said Insp. Neil Wylie.
The biological father has yet to see or hold the boy, even though a Queen's Bench judge in the family law division last Wednesday ordered visitation to occur as
soon as possible. Justice J.A. Ryan-Froslie said the father has waited long enough.
She also ordered the meetings to take place in Saskatoon under the auspices of Family Justice Services. A different judge had earlier named the Children's
Haven in Prince Albert as the place for supervised visitation but no meetings took place.
The father objected to conditions the adoptive parents were imposing. Ryan-Froslie changed the venue, citing possible bias on the part of the Children's Haven
because of connections to the adoptive parents. The woman used to serve on the board several years ago and has made regular financial donations. The father's
first visit with his son was to take place Oct. 25 but was cancelled when the adoptive parents filed an appeal against Ryan-Froslie's ruling. A judgment cannot
be enforced while a case is under appeal.
The father's lawyer, Mark Vanstone, attempted Monday to request a hearing before Ryan-Froslie but she cannot speak to the matter while it is under appeal.
Vanstone intends to file a motion in the Court of Appeal and set Nov. 8 as a date to address the adoptive couple's appeal.
A date for the custody trial has already been reserved for the week beginning Dec. 18.
The adoptive parents' lawyer, Dale Blenner-Hassett, said the father was welcome to see the baby at Children's Haven on Monday but the father refused. He
doesn't want the couple sitting in on the visit because they are opposed to him kissing the boy, referring to himself as father, or taking photos. Ryan-Froslie had
forbidden any terms being imposed on the visits.
"So they've successfully stalled everything again," the man said.
"These people are trying to operate above the law when it comes to this child and that's just sad. What kind of people are these that they can't give me an hour
with my son?
"They say they're acting in the best interests of the child but come on, I just don't see it."
A trust fund in the father'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 father said.
Failing that, he invited people to e-mail (distress@shaw.ca) or phone him (382-3293) for the name on the trust account. He's received offers of money from
people as far away as Toronto and Quebec.
The cause has been picked up by the international advocacy group Fathers 4 Justice, which is also considering asking the court for third-party status in the case.
Darren Bernhardt
CanWest News Service; Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Friday, November 03, 2006
SASKATOON - A Saskatoon father fighting for custody of his six-month-old son was finally able to hold the boy for the first time Thursday.
''It was great. It was just wow. Amazing,'' said the man, who cannot be named under a court-imposed publication ban.
''He's got a lot of energy. He was kicking his legs like crazy and every time I laughed, he laughed too.''
The visit at The Children's Haven in Prince Albert, Sask., lasted an hour and five minutes.
''It was tough to leave. Then I finally whispered in his ear that I would be back soon,'' said the man.
He says the short visit helped relieve some long-held emotions he has been struggling with since April.
''I don't feel that emptiness anymore of wondering, what does he look like, what sounds does he make, what does he smell like,'' he said.
''It has all just reconfirmed what I have to do, which is to get this baby back and bring him home; bring him to his family, to his grandmas and his nieces and
nephews.''
A court has granted the man weekly visits with the child, whose biological mother is a woman with whom the father had an on-and-off sexual relationship.
When the boy was born, the woman signed custody over to family friends, a couple who live in Prince Albert.
In a seven-page document giving the couple guardianship, the woman stated the biological father was unknown to her. The father learned about the child in the
weeks leading up to the birth, tipped by a member of the woman's family.
A DNA test has confirmed he is the biological father but the contract between the mother and adoptive parents is recognized as law. The adoptive parents have
since given the baby their surname and are seeking child-support payments from the father.
A custody trial is set to begin Dec. 18.
In early October, a judge ordered visitation rights for the father but the adoptive parents imposed certain conditions such as prohibiting the man from kissing the
boy, referring to himself as dad or taking photos.
The dad opposed and another hearing took place last week in front of a judge who forbid any terms being imposed.
Saskatoon StarPhoenix
Court 'empathetic' that infant not travel for visits: lawyer
The StarPhoenix, by Lana Haight, Friday, November 10, 2006
A Saskatoon man will have to travel to Prince Albert if he wants to continue seeing his infant son.
"We weren't opposed to having (the visits) occur in Prince Albert. The problem was getting them started," said Mark Vanstone, the man's lawyer.
"Now that that's been addressed, he's delighted to see his son." The man, who cannot be named because of a publication ban, learned last spring his former
girlfriend was pregnant with his child. His paternity has been proven by a DNA test. Not wanting to keep the child, the mother gave a Prince Albert couple
custody of the baby after he was born in April. The Saskatoon man has been fighting for custody of the baby ever since.
In early October, Saskatoon family court Judge Sean Smith ordered the man be allowed to see his son for one hour once a week at the Children's Haven in
Prince Albert. But by the end of the month, the father still hadn't seen his son.
He returned to court and another family court judge ordered the visits occur in Saskatoon, pending a custody trial scheduled for Dec. 18. Judge Jacelyn Ann
Ryan-Froslie's order also states the dad is free to hold his boy, kiss him and take his photo, as long as the pictures are not published or given to the media. The
Prince Albert couple cannot be present during the visits.
The day before the first visit under that order was to take place, the couple appealed the family court judgment, triggering an automatic stay that froze the
ruling.
On Wednesday, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Judge Gene Anne Smith lifted the stay, but ordered the visits occur in Prince Albert, not Saskatoon.
"The court was pretty emphatic that it should not be the infant that is travelling back and forth for two hours every Saturday morning in the winter," said Dale
Blenner-Hassett, the lawyer for the couple, who also cannot be named.
"It should be the father that travels." That works for the dad, especially since he had his first visit with his son on Nov. 2 in Prince Albert.
"My client's first priority was to ensure that he had meaningful access with his son. He never intended to inconvenience the couple or the son," said Vanstone.
In addition to ensuring visits take place, the appeal court decision means the custody trial slated for Dec. 18 will go ahead, although Blenner-Hassett has
expressed concern he may not be able to fully prepare the couple's case by then.
"Delay in our view will be very undesirable," said Vanstone.
Biological father, grandmother both seek baby
Darren Bernhardt
The StarPhoenix
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The trial for custody of a seven-month-old boy began Monday with claims of witchcraft, drugs and an unexpected request for guardianship by the boy's
biological grandmother.
"It is my grandson at the mercy of this court. I have been quietly and patiently watching this situation and see no indication of his inherent First Nation rights
being acknowledged," the grandmother told Justice Shawn Smith moments after the trial began.
"I'm not taking this step lightly," she added, standing next to Smith and reading a prepared statement.
"I'm afraid for my grandson if his heritage is not recognized.
So I ask that he be returned to me so I can raise him among his extended family and ensure he will not lose that identity." The grandmother is a band member of
the Montreal Lake Cree Nation. The biological father is not aboriginal.
The revelation stunned several people in the court, since she was called to support the dad's parental claim.
"Your plea is well-taken and your response is totally appropriate as the grandmother. But your request is not at all on the court's radar," Smith said, explaining
she has no custody application before the court.
The dad, Adam, had an on-and-off relationship with the mother, Rose, and was unaware of the pregnancy until being tipped off by Rose's mother. When the
boy was born in Saskatoon, Rose signed over custody to a couple living in Prince Albert (Dave and Linda), whom the family had met some 14 years ago.
The names being used are not the actual names of the parties involved. A publication ban has been imposed to protect the baby's identity.
In a seven-page document giving the couple guardianship, Rose stated the biological father was unknown to her. A DNA test confi rmed Adam as the dad, but
the contract between the mother and adoptive parents is recognized as law.
Smith must decide, in the best interests of the child, who should raise the boy.
The legal battle is exposing the indiscretions of all involved.
The grandmother testifi ed Rose knew Adam was the father. Rose often spoke of her intention to tell him "but it gradually became clear she didn't want to raise
the child with him," she said.
Rose's lawyer, Greg Curtis, and Dave and Linda's counsel, Rick Danyluik and Dale Blenner-Hassett, jumped at the grandmother's about-face on custody.
"So have your feelings changed? You no longer support (Adam) having custody?" asked Danyluik. "You support you having the baby?" "Yes," the grandmother
responded, stressing First Nations customs have been around longer than Canadian courts and empower her to raise the child or, at the very least, decide who
should.
But Danyluik noted the grandmother is not aboriginal. She has a European background and married a band member. As such, she is no different than Dave and
Linda, he argued.
She was also pressed by Curtis to explain why she once referred to Linda as a witch, to which she responded, "I don't want to go there." But when Adam's
lawyer, Mark Vanstone, asked why Linda is unsuited to raise the child, the grandmother accused her of practising witchcraft.
"Years earlier," she explained. "(Linda) was not feeling well and transmitted pains from herself to my older daughter." Vanstone spent much of the morning
delving into Rose's background of alleged substance abuse and theft allegations, and asked the grandmother about another child of Rose's. Rose hasn't been able
to care for the child, who is nine years of age, and the grandmother has raised the girl.
"She's unable to provide for herself.
How could she provide for a child?" the grandmother told Adams. "She's not bad person, but she needs help. She's sick." The grandmother spoke of Adam as a
"polite, kind, jovial (and) respectable" person.
"I can't imagine many men in a similar situation who wouldn't have contempt.
But he has never said anything untoward about my girl," she said.
However, Danyluik, one of the P.A. couple's lawyers, revealed Adam has suffered from depression, a bankrupt business, a handful of driving convictions, drug
use, an assault on Rose and, in June 2003, was charged with soliciting a person under 18 for sexual services.
The latter was set for trial following a preliminary hearing but was dropped when the main witness could not be located.
Adam also has a child, now 14, with whom he allegedly has little contact.
Another former girlfriend has alleged Adam is the father of her infant child, according to Danyluik.
The case is set to be heard all week in Saskatoon Court of Queen's Bench.
Adam is expected to take the stand today.
dbernhardt@sp.canwest.com
P>Saskatoon father cleared of false paternity charges by DNA evidence
December 20, 2006, World Fathers Union News Service (CAN)--Fathers 4 Justice Canada reports that 'Batman and Wonder Woman will again be driving home the message
at the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatoon today that someone must accept responsibility and take action to STOP the War on Dads.'
The F4J-Canada event focuses on the case of a Saskatoon Dad who has been fighting desperately for custody of his infant son, who is currently in the custody of a Prince
Albert couple because the mother signed her rights over. The unidentified father finally received some redemption today as he was cleared of "accusations and claims" he had
another child by a young woman known only as Sarah.
The DNA bombshell was dropped at the beginning of the dad's testimony by his lawyer, Mark Vanstone, who produced new evidence to the court that his client was in fact
excluded by a 00.00 possibility he was the paternal father of Sarah's child, much to the chagrin and shock of counsel for the responding parties in his current custody battle.
The woman had been making financial demands to the Saskatoon man for several months, equivalent to several thousand dollars, without proceeding with proper DNA
testing to determine the man's actual paternity, despite numerous requests by the man. When the Saskatoon man began fighting for his paternal son, the young woman
claimed he was fighting for one child, but not hers.
"It's extortion, and it happens every day in this country" says Kris Titus, a member of the National Board of Directors for Fathers 4 Justice Canada who has traveled to
Saskatoon from Ontario as a representative and spokesperson for the organization.
No Man is Safe
Darren Bernhardt
The StarPhoenix
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Allegations of a "parking lot deal" in which money was exchanged for custody of a newborn baby have absolutely no merit, a Court of Queen's Bench justice
was told Tuesday.
The trial for custody of the boy, now seven months old, began Monday. The suggestion the baby was bought is absolutely not true, said Rick Danyluik, lawyer
for a Prince Albert couple, Dave and Linda, who presently have custody.
"There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that claim. That was confirmed in today's testimony from (the biological dad's fi ancee)," Danyluik said.
The dad, Adam, 34, was contacted by police on Tuesday morning, informing him an investigation into those allegations has been completed and closed with no
proof of criminal activity and no charges.
The accusation was fi rst raised by an advocacy group called the Canadian Children's Council, which phoned the RCMP and made the complaint. Following the
investigation, the RCMP sent the fi le to Saskatchewan Justice "as a cautionary measure," said Danyluik.
"The provincial legal department looked into it and upheld the RCMP conclusion." Adam had an on-and-off relationship with the baby's mother, Rose, and was
unaware of the pregnancy until being tipped off by a relative of Rose. When the boy was born in Saskatoon, Rose signed over custody to Dave and Linda,
whom the family met some 14 years ago.
The names being used are not the actual names of the parties involved. A publication ban has been imposed to protect the baby's identity.
In a seven-page document giving the couple guardianship, Rose stated the biological father was unknown to her. A DNA test confi rmed Adam as the dad, but
the contract between the mother and adoptive parents is recognized as law.
Justice Shawn Smith must decide, in the best interests of the child, who should raise the boy.
Taking the stand in the afternoon, Adam blamed government agencies for failing in their duties to protect the baby when he was born. He learned the baby Rose
was carrying was his when a relative of Rose called and told him. Up to that point, Rose had denied it whenever Adam asked.
"The guy who called said, 'Funny things are going on. There's talk of money changing hands and the baby being given away,' " Adam recalled. "He told me, 'If
you want to have anything to do with this child, you'd better act fast.' " Adam began phoning "every place I could think of." The list included the Department of
Community Resources, Child and Family Services, the provincial children's advocate and MLAs.
"There wasn't, at any point, any doubt we wanted this child," said Adam, speaking for his fi ancee.
"What kind of parent would you be?" Adam's lawyer, Mark Vanstone, asked.
"I like to have fun. Ice cream is a big part of my day," Adam replied, eliciting laughs from the gallery.
Government agencies advised Adam that paternity must be proven before he has any right to the child. That couldn't be done until the baby was born, when
blood and DNA tests would be taken.
"I was told I had done everything possible to make a claim for the baby and it would be taken care of," he said. "Then (his fi ancee) and I went fi shing." Upon
their return, they were told by relatives of Rose that "the baby has come and gone," Adam said, adding, "I can't describe the feeling. I was betrayed by the
government agencies." The agencies would not give him any information, citing the Privacy Act. They essentially washed their hands of the matter, Vanstone
said in an interview.
Adam contacted a lawyer and started the process of locating the child and getting a DNA test.
Earlier in the day, a report by a private social worker to evaluate the capacity of Adam and his fi ancee to nurture the child was called into question by lawyer
Dale Blenner-Hassett, who is working with Danyluik on Linda and David's behalf.
The report hints at a few problems in the individual pasts of Adam and his fiancee, but paints an overall glowing picture.
Blenner-Hassett showed the report cost $1,900 and was paid for by Adam and his fi ancee, who advised the author, Dennis Bueckert, whom to speak with.
Bueckert testifi ed he was told not to bother with Rose or Dave and Linda, because they weren't willing to participate.
As well, Bueckert did not witness Adam and his fi ancee's interaction with the baby.
"The effectiveness of your reporting is drastically reduced, is it not?" Blenner-Hassett asked.
"It's very limited, yes," Bueckert responded.
dbernhardt@sp.canwest.com
Biological father loses custody case
January 29, 2007 Canadian Press
SASKATOON
A man who has battled for nine months to get custody of his biological baby son wept Monday after a judge ruled that the child will stay instead with his adoptive parents.
In a Saskatchewan Court of Queen 's Bench ruling, Justice Shawn Smith said it was in the best interest of the nine-month-old boy to stay with the Prince Albert couple who
have had him since birth.
The Saskatoon father said that 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, who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of
the baby.
I 'm left wondering what the definition of a father might be now.
Court heard during a trial in December that the man had an on-and-off sexual relationship with the baby's mother.
He found out about the pregnancy a few weeks before the baby was born. A DNA test confirmed paternity.
The biological mother arranged for the Prince Albert couple, whom her family had known for 14 years, to take the child. But the biological father argued that he never agreed
to the adoption.
He also said social services officials did nothing to help him once he found out.
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.
The man said he was willing and able to raise the boy.
However, the contract between the mother and the couple was recognized as law. The guardians had already given the baby their surname.
The decision, made public on the Law Society of Saskatchewan 's website, said the biological father is capable of providing a positive adult presence in the baby 's life, but
not in a parental role.
Smith said in his ruling that the child 's welfare must always be the most important consideration.
While blood ties are one factor, they must be considered from the point of view of the significance to the child, rather than the significance to the biological parent, Smith
wrote.
The court must also consider the uncertainties associated with transferring a child from a known situation of security and stability to a situation with many unknowns.
The judge also ordered a one-year period of familial calm to give the couple a chance to bond with the child.
During that time the biological father is not allowed to visit his son. Such visits had been ordered by the court before the lawsuit went to trial.
The man said he found out the hard way Monday morning that he can't see the boy.
I went for my scheduled two-hour visit and they informed us that there would be no more visits, he said.
I just want to be with my son.
His 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 decision.
It seems that one could be a natural father who does absolutely everything possible to step forward to identify oneself . . . but the system seems to do nothing but erect
hurdles and obstacles to somebody in those circumstances.
Vanstone said it was too early to know if they would file an appeal.
Lawyer Rick Danyluik, who represented the Prince Albert 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.
Danyluik had urged 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 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, 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 Danyluik. He is doing great, which is just wonderful to see.
Dad questions definition of father as adoptive parents given custody of son
Mon Jan 29, 8:46 PM
By Jennifer Graham
SASKATOON (CP) - A man who has battled for months to get custody of his biological baby son wept Monday after a judge ruled that the child will stay
instead with his adoptive parents.
In a Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruling, Justice Shawn Smith said it was in the best interest of the nine-month-old boy to stay with the Prince Albert
couple who have raised him since birth. The Saskatoon father said that 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, who cannot be named in order to
protect the identity of the baby.
"I'm left wondering what the definition of a father might be now."
Court heard during a trial in December that the man had an on-and-off sexual relationship with the baby's mother.
He found out about the pregnancy a few weeks before the baby was born. A DNA test confirmed paternity.
The biological mother arranged for the Prince Albert couple, whom her family had known for 14 years, to take the child. But the biological father argued that he
never agreed to the adoption.
He also said social services officials did nothing to help him once he found out.
"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."
The man said he was willing and able to raise the boy.
However, the contract between the mother and the couple was recognized as law. The guardians had already given the baby their surname.
The decision, made public on the Law Society of Saskatchewan's website, said the biological father is "capable of providing a positive adult presence in the
baby's life, but not in a parental role."
Smith said in his ruling that the child's welfare must always be the most important consideration.
"While blood ties are one factor, they must be considered from the point of view of the significance to the child, rather than the significance to the biological
parent," Smith wrote.
"The court must also consider the uncertainties associated with transferring a child from a known situation of security and stability to a situation with many
unknowns."
The judge also ordered a one-year period of "familial calm" to give the couple a chance to bond with the child.
During that time the biological father is not allowed to visit his son. Such visits had been ordered by the court before the lawsuit went to trial.
The man said he found out the hard way Monday morning that he can't see the boy.
"I went for my scheduled two-hour visit and they informed us that there would be no more visits," he said.
"I just want to be with my son."
His 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."
Vanstone said it was too early to know if they would file an appeal.
Lawyer Rick Danyluik, who represented the Prince Albert 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.
Danyluik had urged 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 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, 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 Danyluik. "He is doing great, which is just wonderful to see."
Sask. adoptive parents win custody of baby boy
CTV.ca News Staff
Updated: Tue. Jan. 30 2007 9:00 AM ET
The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the adoptive parents he
has known almost all his nine-month-old life.
"I was completely shocked that I had lost the custody and visitation, it was kind of a double whammy for me," the boy's biological father told CTV's Canada
AM on Tuesday.
None of the parties in the case can be named.
The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of the baby, arguing he hadn't agreed to the adoption.
He said he hadn't even been aware he was the child's father until he received an anonymous call.
The anonymous caller turned out to be the stepbrother of his ex-girlfriend, who he dated for approximately eight months.
"He informed me that the child would be leaving the hospital ... and that I should come forward and do it fast," the boy's biological father told Canada AM.
Once he found out about his son, he sought custody.
"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.
He also argued that social services officials were not helpful when he discovered he had a child.
"The family justice system needs to be looked at," he said.
"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."
The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting the baby.
In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn't have
children of their own.
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.
The judgment said the adoptive parents from Prince Albert, Sask., present "an environment that will best provide for (the baby's) health, education, emotional
well-being, opportunity for training and economic and intellectual pursuits."
"While blood ties are one factor, they must be considered from the point of view of the significance to the child, rather than the significance to the biological
parent. Any factor, including kinship, must remain subject to the best interests of the child," the court said in its summary of the case.
As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a positive presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role. So in order to give the child
a year of "familial calm" to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year.
"My concern is (the boy) could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult
relationships in his life. In the interests of (the boy's) stability, it is best that he have intermittent exposure to (the biological father), rather than structured
continuous access," the court said in its ruling.
"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. Although
lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people with human frailties."
With files from The Canadian Press
Political Commentary
November 1, 2006
SP Opinions
Custody case requires quick action by court
For Saskatchewan's justice system to retain a semblance of integrity, it needs to act swiftly to ensure no more foot-dragging occurs in a child custody case in
which the biological father, despite court-ordered visitation rights, is yet to hold his six-month-old son.
This is the kind of story befitting a banana republic with a laissez faire approach to legal affairs, not that of a democratic jurisdiction that respects the rule of law
and maintains that justice isn't done unless it's
seen to be done.
Although the man says he contacted hospital and social services officials and crisis workers to inform them he'd raise the baby his former girlfriend was about to
deliver but didn't want, the child was whisked away and given to a couple in Prince Albert without his knowledge.
The birth mother apparently gave up the child for adoption saying the father's identity was unknown, even though the anonymous caller who informed the man of
the pregnancy told him the woman had told people the child was his. A later paternity test, accepted by the courts, shows the child is his.
About the only benefit the paternity test has provided the man was to have the well-to-do adoptive couple sue him for support of a child he's fighting for the right
to raise himself. Given the emphasis society places on the value to children of being raised by fit biological parents, this man's struggle to gain custody becomes
increasingly difficult to comprehend.
The adoptive couple, who've named the baby and raised him since the late-April birth, maintain that because the biological father never lived with the mother, the
relationship was transitory and the woman didn't need his permission to give up the child.
While the ugly and public custody battle wends through the courts, a Saskatoon family court justice on Oct. 4 ordered that the man and his fiancee be given
supervised weekly visits with the child at an agency
called Children's Haven in Prince Albert. In granting the visitation right, Justice Sean Smith said the fact that the man is the biological father is no guarantee he'll
win the right to raise his son.
Lawyers are downplaying the fact that the adoptive mother has served on the board and has been a regular financial supporter of the agency. When the visits
didn't take place as ordered, with each side blaming the other and agency policies being brought into question, another family court justice, J.A. Ryan-Froslie
ordered a change in venue to avoid any perception of bias.
Despite the request of the adoptive parents, Ryan-Froslie said the biological father is free to hold the baby, kiss him and take his photo as long as it isn't given to
the media, all without the presence of the P.A. couple.
Ryan-Froslie noted that the visits need to take place as soon as possible because the child is at the stage of development where he begins making attachments
to people. Despite the judge's caution, the adoptive parents filed an appeal of her ruling on the eve of last weekend's visit in Saskatoon, once again denying the
father of the right to see and hold his child.
Justice Smith said in early October that biological fatherhood doesn't provide the man with a "trump card" in the custody fight. His assessment that the five
months the P.A. couple had by then spent in bonding with the
child weighs in their favour underlines the need for the justice system to act quickly in this case.
In essence, the more legal hurdles the adoptive parents can erect in the path of the man to deny him contact with the boy, the weaker his claim becomes, even
though the will of the court is being thwarted with the
delays. And the longer and costlier the legal battles become, the better the coping ability of the litigant with the greater resources.
What's being seen to be done in this case so far hardly constitutes justice.
Attention custody case critics
Randy Burton
The StarPhoenix
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Any judge faced with solving a complicated child custody case must have the wisdom of Solomon.
Inevitably, one side or the other is disappointed. So it's no surprise to see that many people are unhappy with the resolution of the case of "Adam Hendricks" and his
biological son "Ian."
If you listen to the critics, you would have to conclude that the court's failure to award Hendricks custody of his biological son is either:
- the result of a failed justice system;
- the fault of an unprofessional, biased and incompetent social services system; or
- yet another debacle to be laid at the door of the provincial NDP government.
All interesting conclusions, but those who take the time to actually read the court judgment might come away with a different point of view.
For the record, Ian was not snatched away from Hendricks as the result of some nefarious "parking lot adoption."
He was given to a stable family that has known the biological mother for some time and also shows every likelihood of being able to provide him with a good home.
Nor did Hendricks -- not his real name -- have any status as the baby's father under the law. He wasn't married to the mother, nor was he living with her. The mother did not
acknowledge him as the father, nor had they signed anything declaring him to be the father.
Provincial social services may have done nothing for him, but they were under no obligation to take his claims at face value. As Justice R.S. Smith noted, "to the authorities,
he was simply a male voice on the phone asserting paternity."
It's easy to sympathize with Hendricks' plight, and many people have. At various times in the last few months, his case has been taken up by the Saskatchewan Party, the
Children's Rights Council and the inter advocacy group Fathers 4 Justice, all of whom were convinced Hendricks was cheated out of his son.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
Smith did not reach his conclusions based on whether Hendricks was actually Ian's biological father -- DNA proved that -- but on what is best for the child.
This is not the first time the courts have ruled this way. The law has been evolving in this direction for years, and the judge cited a number of precedents for his decision,
including one at the Supreme Court.
His conclusions are not surprising, given Hendricks' background. Hendricks' family has a history of alcoholism and he has had his own struggles with alcohol. He quit school
after Grade 8 and has struggled to make a living ever since, bouncing from the construction industry to a series of odd jobs to a failed wedding business.
He declared bankruptcy in 2002 and now operates a courier business, although he hasn't paid income tax for three years.
He is married at the moment, but is trying to get a divorce so he can marry his current partner, "Ruth." To date, none of his numerous relationships have lasted more than
three years. All have ended, as the judge put it, "somewhere between badly and very badly."
Oh, and he also has a 20-year-old daughter that he put up for adoption at the time of birth.
Everyone deserves a second chance and Hendricks might be able to make a new start, but you can hardly blame the judge for thinking he is a poor risk when it comes to
providing a stable home for a child.
By contrast, the adoptive family, Linda and Dave Turner -- also not their real names -- have been married for the last 12 years, hold steady jobs and appear ready and able to
raise a child. They are described by Smith as "educated, mature and well grounded." At the time they agreed to take the baby, they didn't even know about Hendricks.
In any event, the judge did not reach his conclusion on a whim. The courts have been focused on the best interests of the child in custody cases for at least the last 40 years.
Over time, the rights of the parent have become secondary to the best interests of the child.
As long ago as 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that "the dominant consideration to which all other considerations must remain subordinate must be the welfare of the child."
In that instance, the court said "parental claims must not be lightly set aside, and they are entitled to serious consideration in reaching any conclusion. Where it is clear that
the welfare of the child requires it, however, they must be set aside."
This approach is reflected in current provincial law through the Children's Law Act, which says "the best interests of the child" are paramount in these cases.
So while some people may not like the result, there can be no question that it is in line with previous decisions. If there is any saving grace for Hendricks in this story, it is that
he will still be allowed limited access to his son in the future. He can never be the dad, but he can still see his biological son.
I'm not sure Solomon could have done much better.
©© The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007 | 
