J.W.M. v. C.J.V., (2005) 274 Sask.R. 94 (FD)

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 23, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2005), 274 Sask.R. 94 (FD);2005 SKQB 548

J.W.M. v. C.J.V. (2005), 274 Sask.R. 94 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.031

J.W.M. ("J.(1)") (petitioner) v. C.J.V. ("C.(1)") (respondent)

(2005 F.L.D. No. 289)

In The Matter Of an application for the adoption of J.M.R. ("J.(2)"), a child by C.D.V. ("C.(2)")

(2005 A.D.P. No. 23; 2005 SKQB 548)

Indexed As: J.W.M. v. C.J.V.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

R.S. Smith, J.

December 23, 2005.

Summary:

A stepfather and mother applied for an order to dispense with the biological father's consent to a child's adoption by the stepfather. The biological father applied for a declaration that he was the child's father, an order for joint custody and an order specifying access.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application to dispense with the father's consent, granted the application for a declaration, granted interim sole custody of the child to the mother, and specified protocols for the biological father's access.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Family Law - Topic 1465

Adoption - Grounds for refusal - Welfare of child - J1 and C1 were 17 and 15 when they became parents of J2 - They never cohabited and J1 had little contact with J2 - C1 married C2 who became the sole father figure of J2 - C2 sought to adopt J2 - C1 and C2 applied to dispense with J1's consent to the adoption - J1 applied for a declaration that he was J2's father and an order for joint custody and access - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application to dispense with J1's consent - The court had to be cautious where an order fundamentally changed the legal landscape for the child and parent - Although J1 had not been part of J2's life, his absence could be explained by youth and inexperience - C1 and C2 were new at being married and had just had their own child - J2 was declared to be J1's father with C1 having interim sole custody - Regarding access, the law presumed the child would benefit from exposure to the parent, but, here, that had to be accomplished on a very gradual basis.

Family Law - Topic 1525

Adoption - Divestiture of rights of parents - Circumstances when order refused - [See Family Law - Topic 1465 ].

Family Law - Topic 1569

Adoption - Consent of parents - Dispensing with consent - Grounds for - [See Family Law - Topic 1465 ].

Cases Noticed:

A.J.R., Re (2004), 247 Sask.R. 135; 2 R.F.L.(6th) 196; 2004 SKQB 90, refd to. [para. 12].

B.C. v. E.T. (1995), 135 Sask.R. 278; 17 R.F.L.(4th) 251 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

B. Barilla, for the petitioner;

S. Frisky, for the respondent.

This matter was heard by R.S. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on December 23, 2005.