B.C.+Birth+Registration+No.+030279

__**Facts:**__ - The natural mother, a single parent, gave up her child for adoption when he was 3 months old - The child has since lived with adoptive parents and is now 15 months old - The natural mother now wants to revoke her consent for the adoption, and return the child to her custody

__**Holding:**__ The child should stay with its adoptive parents because it is in __the child's best interests.__ The child is currently happy and staying with the adoptive parents saves him a further parental readjustment.

__**Reasoning (Prowse J.):**__

Adoption Act, s.8(7) //No person who has given his consent to adoption, other than the child to be adopted, may revoke his consent unless it is shown to the court's satisfaction that the revocation is in the best interests of the child. -// The onus of proof is on the natural parent.

- Historically, significant weight was given to the natural mother, through her blood tie to the child, in such disputes. - s.8(7) changed the law, by placing natural parents on an equal footing with the adoptive parents in cases where the natural parents consented to the adoption. - The primary consideration is now the welfare of the child and not maternal rights. - The only question now is whether the court is satisfied that revocation of consent to the adoption was in the best interests of the child. - That being said, the court, under its [|parens patriae] jurisdiction, can give weight to blood ties, but only by considering __the importance of blood ties to the child__. (Ex: How the child is affected by knowing he is adopted; or by not looking like his adoptive parents.)

- Based on expert evidence, it was decided that the adoptive family was more stable than the natural mother. And, since the child was already happy, it was in his best interests not to have to readjust to yet another alteration of parents.