Paternalism?

Hendricks v. Swan, 2007 SKQB 36 (35 pages)[pdf]:

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench released the decision in a child custody case where a biological mother placed her baby in the care of a third party family without the consent of the biological father. Based on the evidence, the Court found that the child’s best interests were served by granting custody to the third party family.

The Court found the biological father capable of providing a positive adult presence in the baby’s life, but not in a parental role. For the benefit of the child, the court ordered a one-year period of “familial calm” to facilitate bonding and attachment. As such, the biological father will not resume access for a period of one year, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

In arriving at this result, the court stated that the paramount consideration is always the best interests of the child. The court must determine which environment best provides for all of child’s needs. 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 must also consider the uncertainties associated with transferring a child from a known situation of security and stability to a situation with many unknowns. In the case of an infant, the Court must consider the potential harm to a child in disrupting attachments have developed or are almost formed.

An interesting discussion occurs here at the Rotten Tomatoes Forums.

Personal observations:

• If the biological mother aborted instead, this complicated process could've been avoided.
  
• Family members want things simple, even if it's not the best.
  
• Good intentions and leverage can blur together.
  
• Timing is something, but where you stand is everything.