Political Commentary and Opinion
It plain to see what the Government and the Courts of BC are doing to help remove fatherhood based on sexist and bigoted legislation, that caters to political correct issues, and anti-father agenda's. the Legislature of British Columbia no longer considers that marriage, in the classic sense of a union carried out according to usages prescribed by law of one man and one woman, a union which conferred a status with concomitant rights on the parties, their issue and their kin, is a social institution of paramount or, indeed, any importance. Whether the people of British Columbia generally understand that this is what the Legislature has accomplished, the implications are huge to society,.
According to an Response from Chief Justice McEachern in Canada on charge that outsiders secretly influence the courts
June 25, 2001 Issue Full Text
Paternity has no rights
A devoted B.C. father discovers that women have sole power over the naming of children
by Terry O'Neill
TRIAL marriage, common-law marriage, open marriage, traditional marriage, same-sex marriage. When the wedding bells ring these days--if they do at all--they are in celebration of as many varieties of marital union as can be imagined. But what importance do marriage vows actually carry in an era when liberal society says anything goes? According to one interpretation of a recent B.C. Appeal Court ruling, marriage may have become an institution that, whether by design or accident, has no legal importance whatsoever.
The subject was raised in a case involving a 36-year-old B.C. man, Darrell Trociuk, who has been fighting for five years to force his former common-law wife, Reni Ernst, 42, to place his name on the birth certificates of their triplet sons. Mr. Trociuk would also like to see his boys bear his surname, at least as part of a double-barrelled moniker (such as Ernst-Trociuk). But Ms. Ernst has repeatedly refused to accommodate her ex-partner's wishes, despite the fact he was at her side as she delivered the triplets on January 29, 1996.
Moreover, even though the couple were living apart before the boys were conceived (but still maintaining intimate relations), Mr. Trociuk cared for the boys when their mother fell ill, paid for their circumcisions, paid for a DNA test to prove his paternity and continues to pay $209 a month in child support (a figure that reflects his low-paying landscaping job). "I'd always wanted children," he explains.
Notwithstanding these facts, an all-female panel of the Appeal Court ruled two-to-one against Mr. Trociuk last month. The court found that, under B.C.'s Vital Statistics Act (1996), Ms. Ernst was within her rights to refuse to acknowledge Mr. Trociuk's paternity of her children and also that she had veto power over the naming of the children. The same is true under Alberta law, says Shannon Larkin, a spokeswoman for that province's Government Services branch. In fact, Alberta regulations state, "The father's particulars will not be included [in child-registration forms] unless the mother wishes to acknowledge the father."
The dissenter in the B.C. ruling, Justice Jo-Ann Prowse, argued in vain that, were the tables turned and men given such exclusive rights, the B.C. law would surely be ruled unconstitutional. "Discrimination is alive and well in Canada," observes Mr. Trociuk. "It's a very biased decision--that's what I've found out after five years." He suggests the ruling harms his entire family; for example, his mother is now not legally recognized as the boys' grandmother.
"The judges made it quite clear that even if I was married, the mother could still choose not to acknowledge me as the father," he points out. "Yet, the courts recognize me as the father, because they make me pay child support and they grant me access." Mr. Trociuk, who lives in the Vancouver suburb of Delta, has the right to see his sons six hours a week, but Ms. Ernst moved with the children to Vancouver Island (without telling Mr. Trociuk), so he is often not able to see them. Ms. Ernst could not be reached for comment.
It was another part of the ruling, however, that caught the attention of family advocate Kari Simpson, who heads the Citizens Research Institute. Mrs. Simpson points out that, in finding against Mr. Trociuk, Justice Mary Southin said there had been a "shift in legislative values," including those found in B.C.'s Family Relations Act, from 1978 onward. Writing for the majority, Madam Justice Southin said she inferred from the shift "that the Legislature of British Columbia no longer considers that marriage, in the classic sense of a union carried out according to usages prescribed by law of one man and one woman, a union which conferred a status with concomitant rights on the parties, their issue and their kin, is a social institution of paramount or, indeed, any importance. Whether the people of British Columbia generally understand that this is what the Legislature has accomplished, whether by accident or design, is an interesting question."
It certainly interests Mrs. Simpson. Although not sure whether the judge exaggerated marriage's loss of stature or whether politicians have, indeed, managed to wipe out all distinct treatment for married couples, she is positive the majority of Canadians support the traditional married family. Parliament passed a resolution in its favour two years ago, she points out, and the Supreme Court of Canada (to which Mr. Trociuk plans to appeal his case) declared in the 1995 Egan decision that certain irrefutable "biological and social realities" underlie traditional marriage, and that the institution "has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition."
If all that has changed now, "I think the implications are huge to society," says Mrs. Simpson who, as a divorced mother of four, says she appreciates how important marriage is. "We need to bring back the value of marriage, to safeguard the institution of marriage for the sake of families and, especially, children." If marriage means nothing, she says, then the stability and structure that children need is in serious jeopardy.
But Vancouver family-law lawyer Scott Booth thinks Mrs. Simpson is reading too much into Madam Justice Southin's words. "What [the judge] is saying is that, in the context of any parental right to name children, the institution of marriage is a non-factor," Mr. Booth says. "In general, as far as rights of children go to be supported, the fact of being married or not is not particularly significant. Children born in or out of wedlock have the same rights to be supported."
On the other hand, the institution of marriage still carries indisputable legal weight in other areas, such as spousal support and property division. There, legally married people have a "completely different set" of statutes governing them than do common-law partners. "The rights are similar, but the rules are different."