Supreme Court Refuses to Order Confinement of Pregnant Woman

By Murdock, Rebecca | Herizons, Spring 1998 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court Refuses to Order Confinement of Pregnant Woman


Murdock, Rebecca, Herizons


Supreme Court Refuses to Order Confinement of Pregnant Woman

In a 7-2, decision the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canadian courts do not have jurisdiction to order the confinement of a pregnant woman addicted to glue sniffing. In speaking for the majority, Justice Beverley McLachlin concluded that "the common law does not clothe the courts power to order the detention of a pregnant woman for the purpose of preventing harm to her unborn child."

The case arose due to Ms G's addiction to solvent fumes during her pregnancy with her fourth child. Winnipeg Child and Family Services obtained an order from the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in the summer of 1996 that would have confined the woman, known as Ms G, to a health care facility until the birth of her child. Two days later, the order was overturned by the Manitoba Court of Appeal, and Child and Family Services appealed to the Supreme Court.

The agency argued that because the woman had already given birth to two children with developmental disabilities believed to be related to her addiction to sniff, (all three of her children are permanent wards of the state), the court should intervene to protect the fetus. While the court battle was being waged, Ms G voluntarily entered a drug rehabilitation program and five months later gave birth to a healthy boy in December 1996.

In dismissing Child and Family Services' appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that their case could not succeed because it required the Court to make three radical changes to Canadian law:

(1) establish fetal rights;

(2) allow a new kind of law suit involving "harmful lifestyle" allegations; and

(3) permit a defendant's confinement as damages in a civil case.

On the issue of fetal rights, McLachlin stated: "the fetus on whose behalf the appellant [WCFS] purported to act was not a legal person and possessed no legal rights. There was thus no legal person in whose interests Winnipeg Child and Family Services could act or in whose interests a court order could be made". This reflects an established principle in Canadian law.

McLachlin further observed that there was no authority under Canadian law to sue a woman over her behaviour during pregnancy. To allow the action against Ms G would, potentially, open up a whole new category of cases where children could sue their parents for harm caused by second-hand smoke, spanking, or excessive work. Citing a litany of public policy reasons, the Court was not prepared to allow an action for "harmful lifestyle."

Finally, and perhaps most notably, the Court concluded that -- even barring all the other problems with the Winnipeg Child and Family Services case -- there was simply no legal basis on which a defendant could be forcibly detained as a remedy in a civil case. McLachlin noted that Justice Perry Schulman, the judge who originally granted the order against Ms G, was alone in all of Canada, Great Britain and the European Community in making such an order. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court Refuses to Order Confinement of Pregnant Woman
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.