R.H.J., Re, (1998) 231 A.R. 56 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 23, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 231 A.R. 56 (QB)

R.H.J., Re (1998), 231 A.R. 56 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. OC.017

In The Matter Of the Child Welfare Act regarding the application by W.E.H. and J.A.H. for an adoption order in respect of the child R.H.J.

(Action No. AD 0345580)

Indexed As: R.H.J., Re

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

July 23, 1998.

Summary:

A birth mother consented to give up her child for adoption. She sought to revoke her consent after the statutory 10 day limitation period and to stop the adoption process.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the request, holding that the adoption should be finalized.

Family Law - Topic 1561

Adoption - Consent of parents - With­drawal or revocation of consent - A birth mother gave up her child for adoption - She knew that she had 10 days to revoke her decision in writing - At 11:35 p.m. on the last day, she telephoned Department employees to revoke her consent - She did not deliver any writing to the Department -She now sought to stop the adoption pro­cess - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the adoption should be finalized -The mother's consent was free and in­formed - The telephone revocation did not constitute effective revocation of con­sent - Accordingly, she did not proper­ly revoke her consent within the 10 day period - Adoption was in the child's best interests where the mother would have difficulty in establishing a healthy bond with the child because of a long separation.

Cases Noticed:

Martin v. Duffell, [1950] S.C.R. 737, not appld. [para. 10].

C.H. v. R.S. and M.E.S. (1989), 97 N.B.R.(2d) 65; 245 A.P.R. 65; 20 R.F.L.(3d) 456 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

L.G.W. and K.M.T. v. H.W. and M.W. (1989), 22 R.F.L.(3d) 362 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

L.P. and R.G.R. v. D.J.H. and E.J.H. (1986), 69 A.R. 327 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hall v. Cleary (1984), 62 N.S.R.(2d) 397; 136 A.P.R. 397; 39 R.F.L.(2d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

King v. Mr. and Mrs. B., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87; 57 N.R. 17; 58 A.R. 275; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 1; 44 R.F.L.(2d) 113; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 576, refd to. [para. 11].

K.K. v. G.L. and B.J.L. - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

King v. Low - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

Woods v. Racine and Racine (1984), 48 N.R. 362; 24 Man.R.(2d) 314; 36 R.F.L.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

A.N.R. v. L.J.W. - see Woods v. Racine and Racine.

S.K.H. v. E.G. et al. (1996), 197 A.R. 148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Director of Child Welfare (Man.), Mani­toba and the Adopting Parents v. Y. (1981), 37 N.R. 121; 9 Man.R.(2d) 39; 22 R.F.L.(2d) 417 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Ser­vices), Tarry and Tarry v. Folster and Burns (1981), 9 Sask.R. 129; 22 R.F.L.(2d) 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

W.R.L. and C.A.L. v. C.D.G. (1994), 91 Man.R.(2d) 207; 3 R.F.L.(4th) 43 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Tearoe et al. v. Sawan (1993), 32 B.C.A.C. 133; 53 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Child Welfare Act, R.S.A. 1984, c. C-8.1, sect. 57(1) [para. 60].

Counsel:

J.T. Van Vliet, for the applicants, the prospective adoptive parents;

Lydia J. Bubel, for the respondent, the birth mother.

This matter was heard on June 22 to 26, 1998, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Ed­monton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on July 23, 1998.