Film, television and stage actor (and ex-boyfriend of Julia Roberts) Jason
Patric is finding himself in a bind where his custody rights are concerned
regarding his biological son, Gus. The bouncing baby boy, was conceived
by artificial insemination and born in 2009, following the split of his
parents during the same year.
According to TMZ, baby Gus was born following an agreement between his
parents where Patric, would donate his sperm to Danielle Schreiber, on
the condition that she kept the agreement quiet and did not pursue him
for child support.
The twist occurred however, following a brief reconciliation of Patric
and Schreiber between 2011 and 2012. After this time with baby Gus, it
is alleged that Patric suddenly felt a love and affection whereby he felt
compelled to seek shared custody of his child.
The central question is: what rights does a father have, who donated sperm
under the condition that he would not be in the child’s life, and
in return, would not be pursued for child support?
Pursuant to Section 21(1) of the
Child Law Reform Act, a parent of a child or any other person may apply to a court for an order
respecting custody. Furthermore, the
CLRA establishes under section 8(4) there is a presumption that an individual
is the father of a child where the child is born within 300 days after
the parties ceased to cohabitate. Therefore it is clear that in Canada,
Patric could in fact bring an Application before the courts for shared
custody of Gus.
The issue then becomes what factors the courts will look at when determining
whether to grant custody to an Applicant. After all, there is no doubt
that Schreiber will attempt to rely on the parties’ initial agreement.
Unfortunately for Schreiber, however, as shown in the matter of
Wiedrick v. LeMesurier, 2006 CANLII 919 (ON SC), the court will determine custody and access
pursuant to Section 24(2) of the
CLRA¸ which sets out the multi-factored test
‘the best interest of the child’. Luckily for Patric, the biological relationship between the individual
seeking custody and the child, is one factor to be considered under this test.
Based on current Canadian case law, Patric could presumably be awarded
shared custody of little Gus, notwithstanding the parties initial agreement.
The scope of the court’s analysis is limited to what is best for the child.
As fate would have it, Patric’s generous gesture of sharing may very
well return to benefit him. After all, they do say what goes around comes around.