Natural father denied guardianship

Hard choices: Mother married another man, whom child calls ‘ dad’

B. C.’ s highest court has stripped a natural father of guardianship rights to his son although the mother alienated him from his child and married another man.

In a unanimous decision, the three- judge panel of the B. C. Court of Appeal said “the potential for friction and possible impasses in the rearing of the child” militated against allowing the father to maintain the parental responsibilities.

With the support of colleagues Ed Chiasson and Kathryn Nielson, Chief Justice Robert Bauman wrote that allowing the natural dad to remain involved “would not be in the best interests of the child.”

The province’s top judge refused, however, to approve the adoption of the child without the father’s consent because there was no significant reason to permanently sever ties between the two.

In the ruling that identified those involved by only their initials, Bauman urged the mother and her husband to help maintain contact between the natural father and his nine- year- old son — a relationship “now lost,” according to the trial judge, as the boy does not consider his birth father to be part of his family, nor does he relate to him as a father figure.

“I remind S. A. K. of his ability to return to the Supreme Court if he finds his contact with his child frustrated in future,” Bauman wrote with empathy for the difficulties the man has faced.

The couple separated in January 2006, when the boy was 18 months old, after the man became emotionally unstable because of a problematic relationship with his father, who had fallen terminally ill. S. A. K. descended into drug and alcohol abuse, struggling with mental illness, while the woman distanced herself with their child.

They signed a separation agreement in July 2006.

Over the following two years, the man’s mental illness and addiction issues worsened and on April 1, 2008 he fell from a height, suffering serious injuries.

The connection between the father and son became sporadic after that until it ceased altogether.

The dad spent much of the next two years not knowing where his son was living. He told the court he didn’t learn the boy was in the Interior until January 2013.

By that time, the natural father had cleaned up his life and was desperate to re- establish a relationship with his son.

The mum had no interest in fostering that.

In December 2008, P. M. Z. had met P. H. and he became more and more a father to her four- year- old — picking him up from school and taking him to activities.

The child woke up on his sixth birthday, P. H. testified, and said, “I’m going to start calling you dad.”

P. M. Z. and S. A. K. divorced in December 2010 and she married P. H. in September

In these cases, the competing claims between parents are evaluated in light of their significance to the child, not the mum or the dad.

2011; P. M. Z. and P. H. applied to B. C. Supreme Court to adopt the boy, then seven, in May 2012.

The natural father opposed the adoption and was intent on helping rear his son.

Bauman cited in his ruling the lower court judge’s description: “At trial, the father was extremely upset and visibly distraught. He says that he has spent the last few years looking for his son. He says that he has been banging his head against the wall and crying himself to sleep, wondering where his son is and knowing nothing about him. He complains that every time he goes to provincial court, he does everything that is required of him, including co- operating with a forensic assessment and random tests and attending supervised visits, all in the hopes that he will get to see his son. Instead, he feels that he has lost his son.”

But in these cases, the competing claims between parents are evaluated in light of their significance to the child, not the mum or the dad.

The high court decided three parental figures were a crowd.

Still, Bauman emphasized the natural father was entitled not only to reasonable contact, but also to receive information about important events in the child’s life.

“P. M. Z. and P. H. will encourage and facilitate email and telephone contact by S. A. K. with the child on a reasonably regular basis during each month,” he said.