BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

ONTARIO COURT LEGALIZES THREE-PARENT FAMILY

There they go again. Judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal, as usual, ignoring common sense and an objective analysis, and never thinking through the consequences of their decisions, recently decided that a child may now have three legal parents - two lesbian mothers and a sperm donor father. REAL Women, Focus on the Family, together with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Catholic Civil Rights League and the Christian Legal Fellowship, under the name Alliance for Marriage and Family, intervened in the case, raising realistic concerns about the elimination in law of the traditional definition of family: mother, father and child(ren). The case was argued last September, but we knew for certain the outcome of the case three days before it was argued when Chief Justice Roy McMurtry suddenly inserted himself as one of the judges on the panel. Why else was he there? Not even the brilliant arguments of a Clarence Darrow would have changed the outcome of the case.

Seldom has the Ontario Court of Appeal had a case dealing with social issues that it hasn't used to re-design society and its laws according to the ideology of the liberal judges sitting on that bench. Hence, its decision in this case.

The judicial activism of this court has, once again, created confusion, disruption and division in Canada. It's put Canada into dangerous unexplored territory. It is obvious that the court didn't think through the ramifications of its decision, in its haste to make a progressive "break-through" in family law. Even the liberal Globe and Mail, in its editorial of January 4, 2007, stated:

… Family law requires certainty. Where there is uncertainty, separated or divorced parents will do legal battle; and where they do legal battle, the child's interests will usually be harmed.

… The Ontario Court of Appeal did not answer this concern.

… But unless the court has a crystal ball, it cannot foretell where its decision will lead.

The court, claiming that this arrangement was in the child's "best interests," changed the intent and the wording of the Ontario Children's Law Reform Act, claiming it was "filling-in" the gap in the legislation. However, if a child can now have three parents, why not four or six? Children born into marriages or common law arrangements which end in divorce or separation, may now be subject to multiple parents unrelated to them by blood or adoption having legal claims over them, as the adults in his / her life enter into other relationships.

We already know the bitterness and hostility that arises over custody and access when biological parents separate. How much worse will it be when three, four or more adults are fighting for a piece of a child, i.e. the right to control that child's life? Controversial issues, such as religious upbringing, education and health matters, as well as custody, access and financial support, will all serve as fodder for battles among feuding parents of the child. In short, children are now pawns in an adult game promoting adult interests and satisfactions, but not necessarily the best interests of children.

Moreover, multi-parent families will almost certainly lead to polygamy. That is, if a child can have three or more legal parents, how can a court deny all these parents legal marriage?

The truth is, the courts were never established to decide these far ranging, controversial social issues since the courts can only decide cases on the narrow facts placed before them. Unlike Parliament, the courts do not have access to extensive research facilities, nor to all the social facts involved in the issue, nor can the courts make the compromises often necessary in such issues.

Moreover, an appointment to the bench, usually made on the basis of political considerations, does not mean necessarily the acquiring of wisdom or common sense on the part of the judge. The courts, therefore, should defer these complex social issues to Parliament, since judicial activism leads to confusion, not only for the children involved, but also to the infrastructures in society, which are in place to protect children and others.

Maybe a legislature would reach the same conclusions as the court, however, its decision would be the result of research, analysis and debate - not the personal philosophy of unaccountable judges. (Also, the public could throw them out at the next election, if they wanted to.)

The Alliance for Marriage and Family, who appeared as interveners, is appealing this case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS