Newfoundland Child to Have 3 Officially Recognized Parents

Here we go - descent into the moral abyss

All three adult members of polyamorous family deemed

child's parents by judge

The decision is the first of its kind in Canada

A judge in Newfoundland and Labrador decided the adults in a three-way relationship would be

named as parents of the child born within their partnership.Files

Special to Financial Post

Laurie H. Pawlitza

In the first decision of its kind in Canada, all three adult members of a polyamorous family have been recognized as parents of a child.

Two months ago, Justice Robert Fowler of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Family Division) in the case of Re C.C., decided the adults would be named as parents of the child born within their three-way relationship.

In the introduction to his decision, Justice Fowler described the unconventional St. John’s household:

“J.M. And J.E. are the two male partners in a polyamorous relationship with C.C., the mother of A., a child born of the three-way relationship in 2017. The relationship has been a stable one and has been ongoing since June 2015. None of the partners in this relationship is married and, while the identity of the mother is clear, the biological father of the child is unknown.”

Should the relationship(s) become unstable, what happens then?

The three adults brought a court proceeding asking to be recognized as the parents of A. after the Newfoundland Ministry of Service refused to designate them as parents, saying that the Vital Statistics Act allowed only two parents on the child’s birth certificate.

In his ruling, Fowler observed that “the child, A., has been born into what is believed to be a stable and loving family relationship which, although outside the traditional family model, provides a safe and nurturing environment…. I can find nothing to disparage that relationship from the best interests of the child’s point of view…. To deny this child the dual paternal parentage would not be in his best interests. It must be remembered that this is about the best interests of the child and not the best interest of the parents.”

It's hard to imagine having two fathers is in the best interest of a child in any circumstances. Is it wise to completely disregard the probability that only one of the men got the mother pregnant? 

Polyamorous relationships are varied, and may involve a cohabiting group of three or more consenting, informed adults. American research suggests that 1 in 500 Americans are polyamorous, and that more than 500,000 polyamorists live openly in these relationships.

Unlike bigamy and polygamy — which involve marriage ceremonies between the participating parties — polyamorous relationships are not prohibited by the Criminal Code.

So, I wonder why polygamy is against the law? I don't think it is because polygamists had a marriage ceremony. But, I guess, it is the consequence of living in a 'just' society rather than a 'moral' society.

Both Canada and the U.S. have innumerable organizations supporting or connecting people in polyamorous relationships: there are 36 in Quebec and Ontario, and 22 in British Columbia alone.

John-Paul E. Boyd, who has written about the the polyamorous community in Canada for the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, has defined polyamory as “multiple romantic relationships carried out with certain assumptions and ideals: of honesty and clear agreements among partners, mutual good will and respect among all involved, intense interpersonal communication, and high ethical standards.”

Ethical standards, but not moral standards, unless you completely throw out the Bible as moral authority. This you can do, and society is doing it more and more every day. But there will be a day when we will stand before that Moral Authority and have to explain why we have thrown Him out. 

Of course, some of you will dismiss my moralizing and my faith because, as Bill Gothard once said, 'Morality dictates theology'! In other words, we can either believe there is no God and make up our own moral code, or we can shape our god in our own image. Neither will benefit us on that great and terrible day.

Boyd’s research found that people who identify as polyamorous, typically “reject the view that sexual and relationship exclusivity is necessary for deep, committed, long term relationships with more than one person on mutually agreeable grounds, with sex as only one aspect of their relationships.”

Sexual and relationship exclusivity being rejected means that along the way there could be more people enter the relationship. Would they then have the right to petition the court to become parents of the child? Could the child end up with 5 or 6 or 10 parents? If the child has siblings, could they end up with a different set of parents, ie child A having 3 parents; child B having 5 parents; child E having 10 parents? 

The legal issues arising from polyamorous relationships are new, as Justice Fowler observed: “There is little doubt that the legislation in this Province has not addressed the circumstance of a polyamorous family relationship as is before this Court, and that what is contemplated by the Children’s Law Act is that there be one male and one female person acting in the role of parents to a child.”

In the Act, there is no reference “which would lead one to believe that the legislation in this province considered a polyamorous relationship where more that one man is seeking to be recognized in law as the father (parent) of the child born of that relationship.”

Justice Fowler relied heavily on the 2007 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, A.(A.) v B.(B)., in which a lesbian couple sought to have both women legally recognized as the mothers of a child.

In A.(A.), Justice Mark Rosenberg found that there was a legislative gap which precluded allowing a child to have two mothers, and found that “there is nothing in the legislative history of the Children’s Law Reform Act to suggest that the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice to exclude the children of lesbian mothers from the advantages of equality of status accorded to other children under the Act.”

This is just astonishing! Of course there was nothing in legislative history to specifically preclude lesbians from becoming parents; the very thought was unimaginable until the last 30 years. Justice Rosenberg must have known that and yet completely disregarded it. This is an example of Canadian society's spectacular descent into the moral abyss.

In recent decades laws in Canada have changed, adapting to new societal norms. In 1995, Ontario was the first province to recognize same sex adoptions. In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized same sex marriage. All of these legal changes, however, have maintained the traditional notion of coupledom; to accommodate same sex couples, the legislative changes largely needed only to tinker with the definition of “spouse.”

There is little doubt the recognition of three parents will be the least legally complex aspect of polyamorous relationships. Family law legislation across Canada now recognizes only one spouse’s obligation to the other. Current legislation will be difficult to apply in polyamorous relationships, especially if new partners become involved in the relationship and the relationship later breaks down.

No kidding. It will be a nightmare for the children of broken homes.

For example, the length of time spousal support is paid is usually related to the length of the relationship. In many provinces, the increase in the value of all property, (including assets such as pensions) is shared between the date of a couple’s marriage and the date of separation.

How those concepts will be imported where three, four people or more people are involved and have entered the relationship at different times, will be a complicated business indeed.

So what's next in our rapid descent into Hell? Will the children be allowed to enter the communal relationship as sexual partners? Will animals be permitted into the relationships? We're getting pretty disgusting here, but that's the direction society is heading. 

Nothing good will come out of this hair-brained decision!