Buist+c.+Greaves


 * __Buist c. Greaves, [1997] O.J. No. 2646__**

-Two women, Buist and Greaves, were in a same-sex relationship and co-habited for almost 7 years -Greaves gave birth to a child, Simon, through artificial means -Simon has a learning disability that requires therapy -Buist played an important role in Simon’s life -Buist had two affairs during her relationship with Greaves. Buist left Greaves during the second affair (they no long live together) -Greaves has been offered a job in Vancouver, and wants to move there with Simon (they currently live in London, Ontario ) -Greaves counterclaimed for child support
 * Facts**
 * -**Buist is seeking the following things: sole or joint custody of Simon; an order that he not be removed from Ontario; a declaration that she is a mother of Simon (in addition to Greaves) pursuant to section 4 of the CLRA; compensation for unjust enrichment on the part of Greaves

-Are Buist’s claims in the best interest of the child?
 * Issues**

-No. Buist’s claims are all rejected -Greaves is awarded child support
 * Holding**

__With respect to custody:__ -The court finds that Greaves (the birth mother) is Simon’s true mother, based on the fact that Simon calls Greaves “mama”, Simon has Greaves’ last name, and Greaves appears to be the primary care-giver. -Full custody can not be granted to Buist -Furthermore, joint custody is only possible when the two parties cooperate, especially in this case (given Simon’s special needs) -Relations between the two parties are not good, so joint custody is not possible: wouldn’t be in the best interest of Simon.
 * Reasoning**

__With respect to relocation:__ -Simon will have access to facilities for therapy in Vancouver that are equal or superior to those he gets in London -He’ll still have his mother and older brother with him -Furthermore, their life in London has been severely disrupted due to the legal proceedings -It’s in his best interest to go to Vancouver with him mom

__With respect to a declaration of Buist as a mother:__ -The court looks to section 4 of the CLRA, which says “any person having an interest may apply to a court for a declaration that… a female person is **the** mother of a child.” The legislature has used the word “the,” indicating only one person may be a child’s mother. -This person is Greaves, not Buist -The relationship between Buist and the child doesn’t amount to motherhood (section 4(3) requires the relationship to be established on a balance of probabilities, which she cannot do) -Buist had previously authored and signed a declaration that Greaves is Simon’s mother, not her

-Also says that two women may not both be considered mothers in a case such as this (although there is precedent for a child having two mothers in the case of same-sex adoption)
 * Ratio**
 * -**In a case involving child custody, the parents’ interests and rights are not the central focus: the best interest of the child is the central focus.