Now this is dead-ass wrong.

A written contract specifying that a man does not want to be considered the father of his common-law wife's child isn't enough to excuse him from the responsibilities of parenting, an Alberta court has ruled.

The case involves a woman who became pregnant by artificial insemination with another man's sperm. Her partner did not want to be a father, however, so the two signed their contract before she gave birth in 2005.

The couple went to court seeking a legal validation for the agreement. But a three-member Appeal Court panel rejected their arguments and ruled the man will legally be considered the child's father despite his wishes.

Despite the fathers wishes AND the mothers wishes. This court has effectively stolen this womans child from her, and given half of it to somebody who actively disconnected himself from her conceiving the child. In the process, they've put daddy in quite a predicament.

The court has made it clear where the responsibility for the child lies, but when the relationship goes sour, how many rights do you think Daddy will have in a custody battle when this signed document is thrown back in his face? This should be reviewed.

Labels: Canadian Justice