(Adam and Ruth) ask for help (PDF File) Jeremy Swanson Fathers and Men's Rights Activist Ottawa, Ontario Phone: (613) 237-1320 ext 2438 swanson@storm.ca ?For The Children ? ACTIVIST ALERT "A FATHER FIGHTS FOR HIS SON" The battle for baby 'Ian' is on... Saskatoon man who lost high profile custody battle with a Prince Albert couple over his biological son "Ian" has mounted an appeal It is with much pleasure that I can confirm and report on this day the 1st March 2007 that as per various national news agency reports our brother "Adam" of Sakatoon, Saskatchewan has been able to mount an appeal of the earlier January 29th decision of Justice R.S. Smith which granted full custody of Adam's biological child "Ian" to a foster couple and stripped "Adam" and his fiancee Ruth of all visitation rights. 'Adam' has retained Regina lawyer Brad Hunter of Hunter-Miller Barristers and Solicitors to mount the appeal. You can email Brad here to voice encouragement and support: 'brad.hunter@huntermiller.com' A full chronological history of this case can be seen here: http://www.saskatoondad.com/main.html The Canadian Fathers and Men's Rights movement is in full support of "Adam" and his quest to be a Father and a Parent to his natural son. We have symbolically "adopted" "baby Ian" as our own 'mascot' figure. He is a symbol of the chidren we have all lost to the tyranny of Canadian family law. A short recall and some pertinent information in the case at hand: Last month Justice Smith of Saskatchewan ruled that an adoptive Prince Albert couple had the legal right to raise the nine-month-old biological son of "Adam" . The judge also ruled that Adam cannot see his son for one year to allow "bonding" with the adoptive parents. Thr judge actually stated that the father is "capable of providing a positive adult presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role." . The story began when 'Adam' ended his 2006 relationship with the "Ian's" mother. He was at that time completely unaware of the mothers pregnancy until a few days before the baby was born. In April 2006 'Adam' was 'tipped off' that the woman was pregnant and that the child was being offered for adoption without his knowledge, participation and permission. He was told that he had to "move fast" because an adoptive couple had already been selected to hand the baby to and that money for this transaction had changed hands. The baby's mother is an admitted drug abuser and there were fears that the baby might be physically affected. 'Adam' asked the mother if the rumours were true and she confirned that she was pregnant but that he was not the father. She told him in effect to mind his own business. However Adam was told by the baby's mother that he (Adam) was indeed the father of the baby. In adoption documentation the mother claimed that the identity of the biological father was not known. Yet the mother has also sworn in an affidavit that she knew Rick was the Father right from the beginning. Despite Adams immediate reaction to what he had heard the baby boy was handed over to the adoptove parents in what has become known as the "parking lot adoption" Since his birth, baby Ian has been raised by the adoptive couple and the natural biological father has been cut out of his son's life. The lawyer for the adoptive cople has been caught lying when he told a national media audience that he had not asked Rick for child support for baby "Ian". In a letter of October 11, 2006 the lawyer clearly states otherwise. In April 2006 Adam's fiancee Ruth contacted a social worker at Royal University Hospital to voice concerns. She was told by the social worker that the baby would be tested for drugs, as the mother was identified as a possible drug user. She was further told that if the test came back positive that child protective services would be called and the child would not be allowed to leave the hospital until an investigation was undertaken. This would include paternity testing. Just two days after this contact was made a "custody and guardianship agreement" was signed between the baby's mother and the adoptive couple. Adam and Ruth were completely unaware of the agreement at the time. A message to all supporters from "Adam" and his Fiancee Ruth http://www.saskatoondad.com/message.html News feature of 28th February from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix announcing the appeal You can email "Adam" with comments, suggestions and notes of support and encourgament here: distress@shaw.ca Donations for "Adam" can be made to help him fight for his son and to defray costs. Details of where to donate can be found here: http://www.saskatoondad.com/donations.html FACT has kindly offered to be part of the donation process (see website here) For 'OUR' baby 'Brekker' We are Fighting for You and your Dad little one... Hang in there Bud ! ! -Jeremy S The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer and should not be considered to be accepted by Adam or Ruth. From the Front Line Dispelling Myths. What I know to be true, and not true By Kris Titus - Former Vice President, Fathers 4 Justice Canada The media is fickle. The bits of information you receive through the media is just that, BITS of information. I would like to provide you with a full image of the man I know, named Adam, father of Baby B, otherwise known as Ian. There were a lot of terrible things reported about this dad during the past 6 months of media coverage. Let's dispel a lot of those misconceptions and myths surrounding him, the Turners, and the trial. "He's an alcoholic" What does that mean exactly? I know people who have not touched a drop of alcohol for 30 years and they still call themselves an alcoholic. I spent two very intense weeks with Adam, his fiancé and his extended family whereby we were together constantly. Not once, even in this man's deepest, darkest fight of his life, did Adam ever even mention or consider having a drink. Perhaps someone should ask the new 'legal' grandfather of baby B if he could say the same. If being exposed to alcohol is a barrier to being a good parent, perhaps the judge should have sat where I did during the trial where you could not help but smell the recent activities of the new grandfather. " He lives his life fast and loose". DID, DID lead his life fast and loose. Who can actually say at what point someone else's life and welfare become more important than your own? With Adam it could be any number of 'revelations' he has had. Losing his father. Meeting the woman he knows he loves more than any other. Finding out he was going to be a father. No matter when the transformation happened, it sure happened. Adam would make a stunning father. His nieces and nephew love him as if he is bigger than life itself. Again, during the extreme strain of his trial, it was Adam cheering everyone else up. Doing a made up cheerleading routine that had his nieces in stitches and his mother grinning from ear to ear. " He is mentally slow and cannot do more than one thing at a time." Yes, they actually said that! Did you know that your ability to multitask was part of determining your fitness as a parent? Here's where it gets really funny. In the time I have spent with Adam and his family, I have watched him run several phone lines at once for his courier business, while doing computer work, while also holding a very involved and indepth conversation with him. Adam is more than able of doing more than one thing at a time, and do them well! ( PS, in comparison with the previous myth that he lives FAST and loose, and this comment that he is SLOW, it seems to me that there is a certain pace expected to be a good parent, would someone mind sharing that pace with me when they figure it out?) " He has never had a long term committed relationship" Again, the point is? Just because someone is still together after 10 years does not guarantee they have a rock solid, supportive and loving relationship. Day after day Adam and Ruth were there for each other, side by side. And what of the new parents to Baby Brekker? Well, I thought it was nice when the new dad finally decided to show up and sit with ( not necessarily a very supportive 'sitting with' ) his wife for the last two days of court. His absence at what should have been one of the most important events in his life was 'palpable'. " He smokes" Again, the point is? The new Dad smokes, like a chimney. So does his Dad. Nuff said, moving on. " He likes vulnerable women" I may get in trouble for this one, though it is not so much a 'character' assessment of Saskatchewan as an assessment made on observation and study. Saskatchewan is not known to be the most 'affluential' of provinces. There is a chronically low education rate and high rate of alcoholism and crime. Considering Adam's own educational background and his life as a race car driver, I would honestly suggest that in his hometown, there are not many women who are NOT vulnerable in Saskatoon and the pool to choose women from is small and narrow. " He had to claim bankruptcy and has had several jobs" I don't know about all of you, but I know that I am only 33 years old and have changed jobs at least 5 times since I started working. I have also had economic hardships that forced us to claim bankruptcy. Based on the standards set by Justice Smith, there are very few people who should actually have custody of their children. I've said it once and I will say it again, look out all you welfare mom's! They're coming to take your kids! " He was hospitalized for depression" Depression is one of the fastest growing medical conditions there is. " He is emotionally fragile" . "He has shown grit and determination in pursuit of custody for his son, where many would have faltered, he has not." You must be wondering about these two. Yes, they were said BY the same person ABOUT the same person. The message is quite simple actually, men are supposed to be more emotionally attached and sensitive to their families but they are not supposed to show any emotion or else they can be considered "emotional" or "fragile". They are also not supposed to be aggressive in any way but grit and determination are good qualities, just not good enough to make you a good dad. Everyone got that? I know, it's as clear as mud . Moving on. "Her journey has endured many challenges" Ruth has had a tough life as was witnessed in her testimony on the stand and her incredible sharing of her past life with me. I agree that her past 'struggles' are better characterized as 'challenges'. But I also agree that Adam's past 'burdens' should also be seen as 'challenges'. They BOTH have my utmost admiration and respect for overcoming their previous life challenges and facing this new one, together. (Sorry, I had to put this one in, I felt it was a 'glaring' example of how we view men and women differently) >"Lynda believes that this is the first step in an adoption" I have a few problems with this one. First of all, Lynda has actively participated in assessments and in family court cases, so I have a hard time believing she does not know what is actually needed for a formal adoption. Secondly, it was noted in Justice Smith's ruling that although the Care and Custody Agreement appeared to be drafted by a lawyer, yet he also recognized there was no legal identification and no evidence either Lynda or Rose had obtained independent legal advice. Now, stay with me here, IF she had no legal advice, how would she KNOW that the Care and Custody Agreement was the first step in an adoption. Now still stay with me here, WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING HAVING SOMEONE LIKE LYNDA WHO APPEARS TO THE COURT TO NOT KNOW THE FAMILY LAWS DOING FAMILY LAW CASES AND CUSTODY ASSESSMENTS? There's more than one fish that stinks here. The best interests of the child I have to put in my two cents on this one. The children's law act sets out criteria for the best interests of the child, in brief here's how it compares to Adam and Ian: Section 8(a)(i)"the quality of the relationship that the child has with the person who is seeking custody and any other person who may have a close connection with the child" Let us not forget that Adam and Ruth had more than a few visits with baby Ian , who I call Baby B. Baby B was always content, happy, excited to see his dad and never acted strange. There was a connection there, the strength and value of which the courts have seriously underestimated. Let's look just for a second at adopted children and the rights that they have in seeking out their natural parent. Why do they have those rights now? BECAUSE SO MANY ADOPTED CHILDREN FEEL AN INSATIABLE NEED TO SEEK OUT THEIR BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION. Make no mistake, Baby B is going to come looking for Daddy one day, and when he does he will be owed a lifetime of missing his Dad. Section 8(a)(ii)"the personality, care, and emotional needs of the child" Again, Adam is best to know, understand, and provide these for his son. Will the Turners be able to tell him he's not abnormal because he has a crooked toe? Will they be able to tell him that it's a family trait going back generations and he should be proud that it identifies him as a member of his family? Will the Turners know that he bites his lips when he's nervous because it's something his dad does? Will the Turners know, understand, and support Baby B's future quest to be a race car driver because it was in his Dad's blood? You cannot argue with biology people! Children are one half their natural, biological parents. They share our characteristics, our traits, our physical disposition. By the way, you only have to LOOK at Baby B to know he's Adam's child. He's the spitting image of his Daddy. Section 8(a)(iii)"the physical, psychological, social and economic NEEDS ( emphasis added) of the child" This is very important people and what allows single welfare mom's to keep their children. As parents, we are responsible for providing for the needs of our children. I think we all accept that. Am I responsible however to raise my child on a farm and make an income of $100,000 a year? Am I responsible for taking my child to art shows or for sending him to school in the country? NO. NO NO. IF that was the standard of providing for our children's needs then ****% of our population who makes under $100,000 per year, and ***% of our population who live in apartment buildings, and ***% of our population who hates art would all of a sudden be discluded as being good parents! THIS IS NOT A JOKE PEOPLE. YOU REALLY NEED TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. Section 8(a)(iv)"the capacity of the person who is seeking custody to act as legal custodian of the child". Adam is his biological father. Moving on again. Section 8(a)(v)"The home environment proposed to be provided for the child". Same arguments as above for the most part, but even further to that, I have my own personal observations to add. Ruth and Adam live in a really sweet little apartment. Baby B's room is full of fun, colorful, inspiring things that would keep him captivated and help him develop all kinds of skills. There is no question it would be a nice home, as is verified by the assessor that visited there. When I was leaving to come back home to Ontario, I looked around at all the apartments and wondered if the parents and children living there KNEW they were leading a life the courts thought was not good enough. Section 8(a)(vi)"the plans that the person who is seeking custody has for the future of the child" Well, I guess all I had to do to get sole custody of my own children was to tell the court that I wanted one of my sons to be a Chief Surgeon and the other to be an Astronaut? This is just so ridiculous. What do any of us want but the very best for our children? Since when does the state decide who is better than another? Excuse me! If we had all surgeons and astronauts but no garbage men or hairdressers we'd all be living in a heap of dirt with hair around our ankles! Section 8(a)(vii)"the wishes of the child, to the extent the court considers appropriate, having regard to the age and maturity of the child" The wishes of the children have been very clearly laid out for governments BY children as seen in the United Nations Convention on the RIGHTS of the child. This agreement was ratified by the Canadian government and very clearly outlines what children want government's to do to respect their needs. I think it's important to note that in a recent report, Canada was 18 out of 21 on Children's rights issues. As I said earlier as well, many, many adopted children go back later in life and look for their biological parents. Some because of a great sense of being 'unfulfilled'. I would also like to mention a report a saw a year or so ago where medical doctors stated that children, as young as age 6, were better able to tell the doctor what was wrong than their parents. The courts need to respect kids. Section 8(b)"NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PAST CONDUCT OF ANY PERSON UNLESS THE CONDUCT IS RELEVENT TO THE ABILITY OF THAT PERSON TO ACT AS A PARENT OF A CHILD" Adam said it best in one of his recent interviews. His nose was bloodied during the first trial. That's a pretty fair assessment, though I would call it more of a gang beating than a bloody nose. The court has recognized Adam is adequate to parent and would even be a positive person in his son's life. What will we do as parents when the courts decide that jaywalking is a serious offence and that if you have ever jaywalked you are a bad influence? I know that sounds ridiculous, but WHO determines whether something I have done in my past will reflect my ability to raise my children? Is there a secret list somewhere? If so, how do we get our hands on it? Section 8(c)"make no presumption and draw no inference as between parents that one parents should be preferred over the other on the basis of the person's status as a mother or father" I'm going to go all 'radical' here and say that to some there is a 'perceived' bias against men in the family courts. For shame! It is not a 'perceived' bias but an 'absolute' bias. I doubt there are many of you out there who are aware of this case that haven't thought to yourself, "IF THAT WAS A MOTHER, THAT CHILD WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED IMMEDIATELY" If not even further to that, many have probably added " AND HE WOULD BE IN JAIL" If that was your gut reaction then you have validated my statement that there is an absolute bias against men in our courts and in our society. Because Adam was "nothing but a male voice on the other end of the phone" and "nothing but a sperm donor", he was "given all assistance but no help." The court eventually said it was clear that the Turners provide an environment that will best provide for his health, education, emotional well-being, opportunity for training, and economic and intellectual pursuits. Now, wait a second! Haven't we just ADDED a couple of things to the list of determining the best interests of the child. I'll quickly go through each of these points. Health, covered under the child's physical needs. Will the Turners know that Adam's family might have a history of heart disease or thyroid problems or any other kind of medical history? Will the Turners be able to give their son a matching kidney or liver if it becomes necessary, or provide blood transfusions in the event of a terrible accident or medial emergency. I would say that they ARE LIMITED in providing the best for Baby B's health. I'm going to go even further and suggest that having a young child on a farm with horses and large heavy equipment is quite possibly detrimental to a child's health. How often have we heard about tragic accidents involving children and farm machinery? We know who usually wins that collision, don't we? Education, not specifically listed as a criteria, but for the sake of argument, we'll put it under "PLANS FOR THE FUTURE". Do you figure Justice Smith called the local public schools and highschools around each of these sets of parents and asked them what their dropout or graduation rates are or how many of their students go off to post secondary education? What do you think might happen to a child who had limited learning capabilities and was pushed rigorously into an academic program far beyond their capabilities? I have seen several suicide reports and books that discuss this. "Emotional well-being, specified in the list of criteria." I argue again that these judges do not have a crystal ball. Who is to say the Ms. Turner will not experience depression or bipolar or something later in life, or that her husband might have a stressful period of unemployment and take it out on the kids? These are ridiculous assumptions and without proving Adam CANNOT provide for his son's emotional needs, it is unfair to suggest the Turners can provide better. "Opportunity for training." ??? Ummm, where did that one come from? Opportunity for training, for .. what? So, hypothetically of course, you're having your furnace replaced and the furnace guy, needs an apprentice and he decides your baby would make the perfect apprentice. YOU don't have the knowhow to train him as an apprentice furnace guy, so he takes your child because he can provide a better opportunity for training? Again, nuff said. "Economic" Again, look out welfare mom's! Look out everyone that earns less than $100,000 per year. The court has set a serious standard for what is in the best economic interests of a child. You better get out there and look for a second or third job. "Intellectual pursuits" There's that crystal ball again. The court did not prove that Adam cannot provide for his child's future intellectual pursuits. Who knows that Baby B's pursuits will be? Maybe he'll be a Canadian Idol instead of a doctor, maybe he'll be the next Jimmy Johnson instead of an astronaut. Summing up a few loose ends. Bonding. There were arguments presented to the court that the child should not be removed from the Turners because bonding had occurred and it would be too traumatic to move the child. Have you ever heard of people bonding with their kidnappers or with their captors? Should it now be decided that if a child is kidnapped there should be a time limit put on looking for them because after a certain amount of time they can be viewed as being bonded with their kidnapper? Really people, again, these are not common sense issues here. You cannot justify a wrong by making that wrong right. " The child has been adopted" This is a very large myth that must be dispelled. With the inference that there was a legal adoption comes the inference that the criteria laid out for an adoption have been fulfilled, i.e. there was home assessments done, etc. That is not the case here. There was no legal adoption. The Turners are joint legal custodians of Baby B, that's all. There was no home assessments done, not until just before the trial ( The assessor which, by the way, is a good friend of the Turners and was waiting after court for them in his car ). If it truly was the intention of the Turners to adopt Baby B and raise him, would it not be conceivable that proper adoption measures would be paramount on their minds? These are not people who were sitting on a list somewhere after fulfilling all adoption criteria. These are people Adam knew nothing about and who, for whatever the reason is, are greatly disliked by the maternal biological grandmother. "Adam's case was funded by Fathers 4 Justice Canada" MYTH! Big myth! Fathers 4 Justice Canada is a registered not for profit society that relies solely on membership fees and individual donations. See, that's what makes Fathers 4 Justice a real rights organization, the sheer self sacrifice of its members, not one driven by greed and displaced feminist values that most women would (should) be ashamed to adhere to, especially if they have sons, brothers, fathers, etc. Organizations like the Leaf ( Legal Education and Action Fund for Women) fund court cases. The Ontario Women's Justice Network is another, and previously we looked to the Court Challenges Program to screw men over. All previously funded by big government money to boot. Thank God for women with common sense like Bev Oda who recognizes that, and I quote her, "We don't need to treat men and women differently in this country." Here Here Bev! The importance of extended family This should also be a consideration in the best interests of this child. Every day in court for a week, Adam was joined by his mother, brother, sister, their spouses, AND their children, as well as a near and dear cousin. All of these people took time off work and traveled to be there for Baby B. This little boy deserves to know the complete and overwhelming warmth and love that this family exudes! Grandma C would spoil him rotten and make sure he grew up well fed and robust. I know this because night after night this family still gathers for dinner, and what dinners they are! I miss them already. Auntie B and Uncle K and cousins C and A would be wonderful examples that love is worth its weight in dollar bills! They are unselfish, kind, supportive, well rounded people who would be a tremendous presence in Baby B's life. Uncle D, Aunt B, and cousins S, R, and A would also be wonderful for Baby B. Uncle D is a big marshmallow, full of empathy and with an incredibly good heart. Aunt B is smart, sensitive, solid and a fabulous mom. The kids would all make great role models for their Baby cousin. Cousin L, Cousin J and Cousin S are also great support and an integral part of this nuclear family. Successful, thoughtful, strong and positive. Ruth's mother and son also live by and are supportive and encouraging. And then there's the family friends. SO MANY OF THEM! All at the ready for support and encouragement. As I said earlier, Ms. Turner was mostly by herself during the trial. Her family is not nearby though his elderly parents live nearby. I did not see any aunts, cousins, brothers or sisters. Oh wait, I think I saw a sister one day and Mr. Turner finally showed up the last two days of trial. In closing: I could not imagine a better place for Baby B then in the presence of the love and support of his Dad, Ruth and their family and friends. What a terrible miscarriage of justice. The Turners own lawyer, Blenner-Hassett said it sounded like the authorities let Adam down. They sure did. My own interpretation, Adam got screwed. He sure did. IS THERE NO JUSTICE OUT THERE FOR A BIOLOGICAL FATHER? I've been around a situation where a mother had a baby that she did not want. She is unable to care for this child for many reasons one of them being a drug addiction. This baby was signed out from the hospital to a family UNKNOWN to social services and to other various government agencies. The biological father wants his child and for reasons unknown to him can't get the help he is looking for from these government agencies. After paternity testing was done it was proven that he indeed was the biological father. So why does he have to bear the sorrow of not having his own flesh and blood? Why does a biological father have to fight for what is his, even when the mother does not want the child? The people that have the child need to come forward and give the baby back to the biological father. There are many babies born, where neither of the parent wants, or can not afford to raise the child, which is understandable, but this father has come forward and would like his child. I say to the people who have this father's child to come forward and give this baby back to the rightful parent. It seems terrible that a father has to fight for a child that is rightfully his and no one, especially the government will help him to get his child back. There are two vehicles out there with broken hearts all over them one is a van and the other is a car, one heart a day goes on the vehicles for everyday the father has been without his child, hoping that SOON he will be reunited with his child. Carol XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX is being shafted, AGAIN Today, Saturday October 28th, was supposed to be the day that XXXX (the Saskatoon father fighting for the right to raise his son) was to meet
his son. Once again XXXXXX XXXXXX and her husband have blocked the visitation attempt. You see, this week Justice J.A. Ryan-Froslie
ordered that XXXX be able to see his son and that the visitation happen as soon as possible. The Judge believes, as I do, that it is imperative
that the child see his father as soon as possible. This child is in his formative stages and is making bonds that will be important to him for the
rest of his life. The XXXXXXs blocked the order simply by appealing it. Family Services advised XXXX that they can not enforce an order that is
being appealled. by Kari XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX wants to be Dad While DNA tests have proven that baby XXXX is biologically XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX's son, XXXX wants to be his dad. XXXX (of Saskatoon,
Saskcatchewan) had an off and on relationship with XXXX's mother XXXXXX XXXX, during which time XXXX was conceived. However the
mother did not inform XXXX of his impending fatherhood (and in fact claimed in documentation, to not know who the father was-a lie disproved
by her relatives that all very well knew XXXX was the dad), instead arrainging for a family friend to take the child. Close to the child's birth XXXX
did find out about baby XXXX through XXXXXX's stepbrother and since then has been trying to get help to get custody of his son. XXXX was
born in April, DNA tests proved XXXX's fatherhood in July, yet here we are in October and XXXX has yet to meet his son. XXXXXX XXXXXXX-XXXXXX and her husband are refusing to relinquish custody and have made demands that XXXX must abide by before they will let him see the
child. Even after a judge ordered visitation rights to XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXX-XXXXX (his fiancee) last month. I would like to know why has
this couple not been looked at for contravening a court order? posted by Kari I have read every news article and listened to every television and radio news cast about this unfair bizarre case. I think the parties have lost sight over the main
issue, and that is the best interest of the baby. I just can not see how these stall tactics are in the best interest of the baby. Why would it take so long for the
court to make a decision about this child? On October 25th, the parties went back to Court. Another Judge had awarded the father and his fiancéée the right to visit the child Only this time making the
decision for both parties as to a location, specific day and time, what can be done such as the father can take pictures of his son, and even be able to call
himself Daddy or what ever he chooses to call himself, and the Prince Albert couple can not be there I went to bed last night thinking of this father, and how joyous he must be to finally be able to hold his son in his arms. I am very excited for this man. Instead I wake up to read in the news paper that the Dad's visit with his son has been cancelled, I sat over a cup of coffee and wept for this man, my heart sunk as I am sure millions of others reading this sad news did. This is so unfair to the Child as well as the father. I wish that baby was able to talk and understand how much his father wants him, i am sure this child like every other child that has been given away, would want to spend time with his or her biological parent. One has to wonder what kind of morals and values this Prince Albert couple have. Think about it. There are so many children that their biological parents had to give them up for adoption whether it be emotional, economical, even age reasons or the fact that they were just not able to provide and safe and loving home for them This simply is not the case in this matter. From what I have seen and heard from all sources this couple can provide the baby a safe, loving and stable environment . One almost has to wonder if it wouldn't be in the best interest of this baby to be put with the biological father until the Court decides custody. At least it would
be in a home where access would be facilitated. I know that sounds cold since the baby has been in the Prince Albert couple's home for six months but is it
really in the child ?s best interest to be there? I have now learn ?t that the biological father and his fiancéée have had a couple of visits with the child, and the child has a great instinct and knows who is father is. I was so very happen to hear that the child has his fathers eyes. Let 's ensure that there are no more stall tactics, and bring this baby home. Any one interested in helping this man out, a trust fund in the dad's name has been set up at TD Canada Trust branches nationwide. It is in his name, which can't be published, but most branches are familiar with the case and would know for whom the donations are intended. Activist News The story of our friend and brother"Adam" might well be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for the Fathers Rights movement and the War on Fathers and the Family. It might just be the catalyst for change we all know has to come. There really is just so much we can take, Still, I hesitate to so loosely describe such a calamity as a mere straw. Having said that you all know that many stories of horror abound . As this is being written there are litewrally hundreds of thousands of Fathers in Canada today without their children. And these Fathers knew their children and tucked them into bed at night, read them stories and were their guides and protectors. In essence they were 24 hour parents before finding themselves as twice a month parents with the stroke of a pen and the bang of a gavel. And the horror of family law is only just beginning at that point. We all know how much worse it gets. You can bet we identify with our brother "Adam" as he is forced to be called. There is no doubt that non custodial Fathers are the largest single oppressed visible minority in Canada today and the situation with family law and the rights of Fathers and their children is the biggest single social disaster in this country's history. Jeremy Swanson Farhers Rights Activist Ottawa |
I am a married mother of 4 living in Medicine Hat, Alberta and last week while reading the local newspaper I came across an article about a man losing custody to a couple. This biological father has been judged as inferior by our courts and yet was deemed to be a potentially "adequate" parent.
THIS IS WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS!!!!
Firstly, in this country a man has no rights when it comes to being a father. A woman can decide to have an abortion, but the man has no say because it is her body. She can give the child up for adoption, but he has no choice if he wants to raise the child (according to this recent judgement). Finally, she can keep the child and you can bet the courts will require him to pay child support (suddenly he's a father whether he wants to be or not). This system is WRONG!!!!
"Adam Hendricks" has not been deemed a neglectful or abusive parent because he hasn't been given the chance to be a parent! Our courts are moving the line further and further with each judgement. How can the judge in this case state that Adam doesn't fit the definition of a father, but if the biological mother kept the child, he would fit the definition simply by having the right DNA? This is such a double standard and what's happening is the courts are moving the line each time a judgement is made.
What if a child has been placed in a foster home and the mother has taken two years to get her life back together? Are we now saying that the foster parents have a right to the child because they are "the better choice", "have more resources" or "have bonded". These appear to be the reasons for the judgement in the Hendricks case.
What has got me baffled is that I have not seen much publicity on this case. Please, please, please write back and help this man and many, many other men by doing a story and shining a light on this injustice!
Crystal LXXXXX
To: Carol Skelton
Member of Parliament
Saskatoon Biggar Constituency 904E
22 nd. Street west Saskatoon, Sask.
S7M 0S1 From: xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
Box xxx Odessa, Sask.
Dear Madame Minister: I would like to formally request your assistance and involvement in a very trying ordeal that is occurring presently in Saskatoon. As you are aware a young man named xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx has been fighting for custody of his infant son since April of this year. Without going into great detail the situation is as follows. -His ex girlfriend decided to give up a baby born to her in April _Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx is the father. He came forward indicating that he would like to raise the child -A number of governmental agencies were contacted regarding Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx intentions. _He was assured by these agencies that certain protocols and procedures would be followed after the baby was born. To me these procedures are quite clearly spelled out in the Geneva Convention (rights of a child) _Three days after the birth, the baby was remove under suspicious circumstances and placed in the care of a couple from Prince Albert, Sask. -There is mounting evidence showing that money was exchanged between the birth mother and this couple for the baby. -Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx contacted the governmental agencies to lodge protest and complaint. These agencies then began to recant their previous assurances to Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx. _From that point forward Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx has been fighting a beaurocratic nightmare. -Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx legal bills are now approaching $30,000.00 _Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx has not yet see his infant son although there is a court order stating that he can. The Prince Albert couple can not seem to find a convenient time when he can visit. -The Prince Albert couple can not adopt the baby. They must have both natural parents approval. Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx will not approve adoption. -At Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx last court appearance the presiding judge made this statement. "We would not be here if this were the United States of American." "Unfortunately Canadian law is so convoluted that this has to go to a trial." -A court date has been set for the near future for the custody fight. Madame Minister, I feel privileged to live in a country such as Canada. That is until I see the injustices that are carried out in our civil and legal systems. Our entrusted officials are fully aware of the problems but chose to turn a blind eye. Canadian Delegates stood in front of the United Nations Assemble and asked that the world follow our foot steps by inaugurating a bill to protect children's rights. Yet we do not adhere to those same principles in our own country. Is Canada being Hypocritical? I think so. Madame Minister, I ask you now for your support to correct a scandalous and unfair situation that has been created for Mr. xxxxxxxxxxx. I once again want to feel that I live in a country that the world looks up to.
Good morning Mr. Calvert
My name is Kris Titus and I serve on the Board of Directors for Fathers 4 Justice Canada, a national organization asking for family law reform.
As per a conversation with one of your office assistants, I am submitting to you in writing my request to have a meeting with you next week about the need to reform family law and its related services.
I would also like to discuss what direct responsibility your Provincial government may have if a government agency was involved in the illegal adoption of a child from a biological father, xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
This case is now being investigated by the RCMP and is receiving media attention even in Toronto.
I will be in Saskatchewan Monday, October 23rd and Tuesday, October 24th to do a press conference regarding the above mentioned case and would like to see if you can make yourself available to me for even a short amount of time.
Your prompt reply is both anticipated and appreciated.
Most sincerely;
--
Kris Titus
aka Wonder Woman
Regional Coordinator
Board of Directors
Fathers 4 Justice Canada
E-Mailed to Saskatchewan Minister of Justice Frank Quennell
Sat, 21 Oct 2006
premier@gov.sk.ca,
From: Darla" <tiggr@talk21.com
Subject: Re: Baby xxxx xxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxx)
The xxxxxxxxxxx case should not even be in the courts. This is a cut and dried matter, where the only obstical is the fact that the parent fighting for custody is the father.
This country criticizes fathers, calling them deadbeats, violent, abusive, and lacking interest in their children. This child has been wanted the moment the father knew of his existance. And is fighting for him. He has proven himself worthy, and capable of taking care of little xxxx.
How can you stand back and let this child and father stay separated? Even worse, how can you sit and let this father spend a large amount of money in the courts, knowing full well it is HIS RIGHT, and the CHILD'S RIGHT to be together.
This child was sent to a couple without the fathers authorization.
THAT is ILLEGAL.
If this had been a woman fighting for her child, the case would not even be going to court.
I hope this can be resolved quickly, in the PROPER least expensive way for this FATHER.
There will be no harm to the child. No one considered the harm when the mother didn't want him. Why when the FATHER does want him I am sure the father will allow access visits for the NON-BIOLOGICAL couple that received this baby under questionable circumstances.
If this child remains with this couple, with this father spending all that he has to be only "awarded" access visits, it will reveal the pathetic decline of the Canadian Justice system. For it will then be at rock bottom.
Minister's Responce to Darla's E-mail
Ms. Darla McKinstry
***********
HAMILTON ON *** ***
Dear Ms. McKinstry:
Thank you for your communication of October 20, 2006, raising concerns about the family law case which has recently been in the news.
I would note that this matter is currently before the courts and that the court has imposed a publication ban relating to this case. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on matters at issue in this specific case.
Saskatchewan legislation addresses both fathers ? and mothers ? rights and responsibilities with respect to children. The over-arching principle and concern in all cases involving custody, access or adoption are ?the best interests of the child. ? Saskatchewan law contains no presumption with regard to either the birth mother or birth father but rather focuses on the rights of the child.
Under The Children ?s Law Act of Saskatchewan, both the birth mother and birth father of a child are recognized as a ?parent. ? Generally, common-law or married parents are recognized as having joint legal custody of a child, unless there is a court order or agreement that establishes otherwise. However, in situations where the parents have never cohabitated after the birth of the child, the parent with whom the child resides is the sole legal custodian of the child by law, unless this is determined otherwise by court order or agreement. This provision ensures that the child ?s relationship with the primary care-giving parent is established in situations where the relationship between the birth mother and birth father may have been transitory and the birth father is no longer involved with either the mother or the child. However, the birth father who wants to have a relationship with the child can apply under The Children ?s Law Act for custody or access to the child. At that time the child ?s best interests will be determined.
Ms. DarIa McKinstry
Page 2
Custody and access issues raise difficult and emotional concerns. These are the complex matters which the family courts decide based on the evidence provided to them, and based on "the best interests of the child."
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely,
Darla's response to the Minister Frank Quennell
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:23:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: Darla:tiggr@talk21.com
Subject: Re: Response from Saskatchewan Minister of Justice
To: premier@gov.sk.ca, minister.ju@gov.sk.ca
Thank you Frank Quennell, for your response dated November 2, 2006.
I pasted it below my response, for your recollection.
In your response it CLEARLY states that fathers are nothing. Worthless. Mothers can do what they want, but a father, if wishing to be a part of the childs life, must apply through the courts. What is logical, rational, ethical, or moral about that?
Having been born in Saskatchewan myself, I know the true family values once had by all. I am more than just shocked at the response you gave me.
As a father of 3 yourself, how can you allow another father be treated in such a fashion? How would you like to be forced to spend all your hard earned money in litigation, simply to be a part of your child's life? That is what will happen to xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx.
That is exactly what the courts and lawyers want. After all, thats why they chose those professions.
Money, Mr. Quennell. Money. That is all this boils down to. Nobody cares about this child, or what is in his best interests, but those closely involved.
In this day and age, where it is common knowledge that numerous men are sincerely trying to be, and are quite capable of being, a true father, should they not be allowed? Is it not what the feminists have cried for for decades?
The letter you sent me has been distributed throught many parts of the country to show the absolute disgusting predicament men/fathers are in these days.
You stated that it is before the courts. It shouldn't have been put there in the first place. The couple that obtained this child should be FORCED to return him to his rightful father. Courts and litigation are for fighting over possessions, and children are not possessions.
Take a look at crime statistics where children are separated from their fathers for one reason or another. Fatherless children are destined for trouble with the law, drugs, alcohol, and truancy. If womens groups can rely on such statistics for reporting of "dead beat dads" then we can rely on the very statistics for reporting what would happen to these children when not allowed to have their fathers in their lives.
These supposed deadbeats, when investigated further, turn out to be denied access, or physically, emotionally, spiritually bankrupt due to the litigation process.
To society, courts, women, men are just there for the sperm and the money.
I pray to God nothing of this magnitude winds you up in the same predicament Mr. Quennell.
Having to fight to be with your own child.
The rest of Canada is watching Mr. Quennell.
What importance would you put on a father?
Darla McKinstry
***********
Hamilton, Ontario
Letter to the Editor of the Star Phoenix February 02, 2006
Dear Editor: Re; System failed father
I am writing to comment on your story regarding the Saskatoon Dad that lost his bid for Custody to Adoptive Parents. I read the Court's decision, interviewed the Dad and followed this Case from the beginning. Your article accurately quotes the Court's Decision and refers to a fraction of the hurtles and road blocks that this Dad had to overcome just to have this matter addressed by the Court. The Court muses to seek the best interest of the child without affording the child representation. When I spoke to the Dad he wept; "What about my son's rights?"
I pose to you and your readers; who represented the Child? For the Court to assume that role in this case was unconscionable and stands as an act that interfered with the Natural Course of Justice. How can one stand as Advocate and Adjudicator? These are conflicting terms and while the concept of Family Law protests to require the Parties maintain a focus towards "The Best Interest of the Child" it is only through the appointment of Independent Legal Counsel that this focus can have a chance to appear Creditable.
We all weep over the travesty that was afflicted upon this Dad. But, who will join me and the Dad in weeping for the Child who was ultimately denied his rights?
Thank you,
Allan Buteau
It's Time We Stepped Up For A Father's Rights
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007
How would you feel if you found out that your biological father fought for you after your biological mother just gave you away, without even telling him? How would you feel if you found out that he openly cried in court when a judge told him that your biological father wasn 't "fit" in a paternal role and that he couldn't even see you for a year?
So, yeah, I touched on this yesterday, but essentially, a man who has fought for months to gain custody of his son, lost his court battle yesterday.
This makes me feel sick at heart.
I feel sorry for this man. And right now, I think Justice Shawn Smith made the wrong decision. I mean, he's like the kind of judge who'd give a pedophile a few months in jail "the kind of judge who makes decisions that make you scratch your head and think, "Him" He 's the guy who 's making decisions on what 's right for society and what 's fair? Are you kidding me? "
The father was right: this is unfair.
If the judge was in this father 's position, how would he have felt? Maybe the judge isn 't the type of guy who'd fight for his kids, but that doesn't mean he should look at this case and say, "Well, this guy really got the shaft? but, you know what? I'm not going to correct the wrong that the mother did."
You know, maybe it's harsh for me to say the judge is acting like the kind of guy who wouldn't fight for his kids if he had any, but that's what it amounts to: any man who understands the desire of this father to be a father to his child, wouldn't have ruled the way that Justice Shawn Smith did.
I'm not disputing that the adoptive parents would probably have made good parents. I don 't know if they would or not ? and for that matter, I can't be 100% sure of how this biological father would have fared as a parent, either. But this guy 's actions speak louder than his words.
He cried when he was told his son would stay with the adoptive parents. He fought for months to gain custody.
And you know what? You can't argue that the child, at nine months, has grown accustomed to his adoptive parents and that they're the only parents he knows. You know what? At nine months, the child can get used to anybody he sees often enough.
But you know what else boggles my mind? It's when the judge ruled that this man cannot have any contact with his son for a whole year.
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
And why aren't more women stepping up to back up this guy? Here 's a rare case in the news about a guy who wants to be a father, who's behaving exactly in the way all women want the father of their children to behave.
Why aren't more women stepping up and speaking out about this?
This whole thing just disgusts me.
The mother in this case more so than anybody else.
The recent decision handed down by a Saskatchewan court in the case titled, ?Adam Hendricks versus Rose Swan ?, presided over by Justice R. S. Smith, is causing a stir
in Saskatchewan, and so it should.
The nuts and bolts of the case are as follows:
The names used are aliases.
Hendricks and Swan had a relationship. Swan is alleged to be a drug addict/prostitute. Hendricks is alleged to have had a checkered past involving alcohol. Swan became
pregnant and did not inform Hendricks because the relationship had broken down. Hendricks found out about the pregnancy and informed the appropriate government
departments that he wanted the child and was to be informed when it was born. The child (a boy) was born, whisked away into the custody of a couple in Prince Albert who
have strong ties to the Aboriginal community. Hendricks was not informed. Accusations abound that a relative of Swan, a mucky muck within the Indian governance system,
arranged the grab and run.
Hendricks launched a court battle to gain custody of his son. The judge ruled that the boy would remain in the custody of the ?new ? parents, and that the father would not
have any access to the child for one year in order to allow the child to better bond to the ?new ? custodial couple. Much was made of Hendrick's checkered past compared to
the custodial parent's lily "white" status. Further more, the custodial parents were given the right to deny Hendricks any visits, at any time, in the future.
Issues:
1. Someone, somewhere, within the governmental structure shut out the father even before the child was born. An obvious conspiracy occurred because multiple
department cooperation was needed in order to pull off the transfer of the child to the custodial parents. First Nations issues are generally Federal; while welfare and family
law issues are Provincial. Did government organs cooperated to defraud the father of his child?
2. The Father has been denied his son based on his checkered past. Yet, the mother, whose past seems to be even more ?checkered ?, has been given
significantly more access to the child. And, even her ?family ? has been given access, with direct reference to ?heritage ? being expressed in the judge ?s ruling. In short,
it would seem that Indian politics has played a critical role in this decision. It would seem that collective First Nations rights trump the rights of a non-native father. The
precedent here is that the rights of a native parent supersede the rights of non-native parent ... considering all else is equal.
A reading of the ruling, in its entirety, and knowledge of the facts as they unfolded in Saskatchewan is needed in order to see through the dangerous precedent set by Justice
Smith. He ignored completely the possibility of a conspiracy to defraud the father of his child, yet claimed with much flourish that because the father had not been with the
child, the child could not, should not, and would not, bond to him. Yet, everyone in Saskatchewan knows that the father did all he could to gain access to, and reclaim his son
? whom the mother did not want.
Welcome to Saskatchewan. Welcome to Indian politics. Welcome to the cesspool of Sask. government departments seeded so heavily with the ?progressive ? class that
they can conspire and triumph wherever, and however, they want where race politics are involved.
The Ruling
Critical Passages: Section 18 where Rose and her family are given very generous access to the child she did not want; while Hendricks is shut out.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx has his day in court
and as of yet, as far as I can tell, there has been no decision by the Honorable Justice Shawn Smith.
During the five day trial, as is usual in such cases, there was accusations on both sides. Although from what I have seen it appeared to be more vapid on the side of the
couple that want to keep xxxx's son.
The light in an otherwise nasty business of a trial, was the biological grand-mother's testimony. While there were certains aspects of her that were concerning, what she had
to say about xxxx was important and something that the Honorable Justice should really take to heart. She described xxxx 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.
Now if the biological grand-mother sees the good in xxxx, what more can you ask for? Sure there are things in his past that the other side tried to throw at him. With the
evident lying nature of both the biological mother (she again stated she did not know xxxx was the father, while having repeatedly told family members he was) and her sister
(who contradicted herself on numerous occasions during her testimony and conveniently had amnesia about other issues)
I would really take the biological mother's accusations with more than just a grain of salt.
To you xxxx, I say this: When this is all over, and your son is where he belongs (I do so hope this comes to pass) do right by him and by us, those that support you and want
so badly for you to have your chance to be a real dad. Not just a biological father. Love him and raise a good man.
And be sure that he does know his culture and where he comes from. I, myself, am of the First Nations and I believe you can give him that part of himself, with as much
reverence as is deserved.
Money will never be Love.
Book knowledge will never be intelligence.
Logical manipulative statements will never be Truth.
The genetics and soul of the Dad will always be in the Son.
In the Spirit realm, you and your son are one.
That priviledge will never belong to those with whom your son is living with at this time.
They will never ever have that connection, and no amount of money and manipulation of the justice system can change that.
How sad it is that people must throw rocks to feed their egos, for any and all who point fingers at your small human errors are guilty of the same and greater errors.
Anyone who claims they are without error is a LIAR.
I have known you for many years , you've had your ups and downs, as we all do, because we are human, but these challenges that you've had, have stengthened
you and made you into the person you are now. You have had to face life boldly, and get up when you were down and that my friend is known as success.
You were not given a fair trial, because you were not given the chance to prove that you are capable of being a good Dad.
No lawyer or judge should even begin to presume that they know what is best for your son , after all you know him better than any of them possibly could, after
all he is a part of you .
I wish I had the answers for you that would bring justice quickly, but I don't.
I do know however that no one can tell you how to feel or what to do but that the desire in your heart will spurr you on. Just remember there are no rights or
wrongs, many times it takes trial and error to come to a perfect solution.
Speak and listen to your heart it will give you the best advice. If the advice you hear creates fear and discomfort than it is not coming from your heart[ your love
centre], but from your fearful self or ego. Balance in everything, sometimes the smallest steps lead to the greatest results.
Love and blessings to you and Ruth
Claire Dion
p.s. How silly that in order to have this communication I have to use false names, shouldn't that be illegal!!!!!!!!!