The court dispensed with the father's consent as the adoptive parents were found capable
The Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld a decision approving the adoption of a three-year-old child despite the biological father's objections.
In Re A. (Adoption), 2024 ABCA 20, the appellant father argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a parenting order and approving the adoption over his objection, insisting he should have been found unfit before his consent was dispensed with.
The biological parents were in a brief relationship and lived with the father's parents. The mother ended the relationship, moved to an undisclosed location, and blocked all contact with the father. She contacted an adoption agency before the child's birth, withholding the father's last name, and approved the child's adoption by the respondents. The mother signed a consent to adoption on the day of the child's birth, and the child has since resided with the adoptive parents.
The father filed an objection to the adoption and sought guardianship and parenting rights. The trial addressed the outstanding issues, and the judge dismissed the father’s application, emphasizing the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration. The judge concluded that the best interests of the child prevailed over biological ties, noting that the Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act did not require a finding of parental unfitness as a precondition to dispensing with consent.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of the evidence. The court emphasized that the child's best interests are the prevailing test, noting that biological ties are just one of many factors considered. The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to dispense with the father's consent, as the adoptive parents were found capable and willing to assume parenting responsibilities.
The appellant also argued that the definition of "guardian" in the Family Law Act was discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, this issue was not raised at trial and was deemed moot since the appellant was treated as a guardian during the proceedings.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the importance of the child’s best interests in adoption proceedings. The trial judge acknowledged the bonds formed with the adoptive parents and the benefits of maintaining a relationship with the biological family, emphasizing the potential for a positive relationship if approached with mutual respect.
