Facts:
In the month of November 1989, the parties started a relationship i.e. common law relationship. Two years later, they wedded. A kid was conceived emerging from their relationship, and the wife (Sharon Chartier) brought to the relationship a kid from a past relationship. The husband (Gerald Chartier) played an active job in caring about the two kids and took dad's responsibility for his wife's little girl kid.

In 1992 the parties isolated and in 1994, in an assent judgment, the husband recognized the two youngsters as offspring of the marriage and was allowed access to them. In 1995, the wife had initiated divorce procedures.

She remembered for her case the request for declaration that husband remained in the spot of a parent to her little girl, which the husband challenged. There had been some conversation of formal adoption, yet it had never occurred. At the trial, it was discovered that husband had repudiated his parental relationship and consequently he was not required to contribute any help for her.

The judge in trial found that it was clear abundantly in Manitoba trust and family law that the life partner remaining in the place of a parent, having intentionally assumed that job, reserved the right to pull back unilaterally from that job. On the appeal, it was likewise noticed that the right of an individual to end a relationship where the person remained in the place of a parent was well settled in Manitoba and that the court was bound by a past decision.

Issues:
Whether the father has any support obligations which are arising out of his relationship to his daughter of ex-wife?

Judgement:
By Justice Bastara, writing for the unanimous court, he acted in favor of Sharon and stated that Gerald could not unilaterally sever ties with children. To decide whether a life partner is in the job of parent, the court must glance at various components including:

1. Intention: both those communicated formally and inferred from conduct
2. A step parent can't contract out of an in loco parentis relationship from the beginning.
3. Investment in the more extended family: does the child take part in the more extended family similarly as would a natural kid?
4. Does the step parent give financial support to the kid?
5. Does the individual order the kid? (Discipline)
6. Does the individual represent to the kid/the family/the world, either expressly or certainly, that the person is dependable as a parent to the kid?
7. What is the nature or presence of the kid's relationship with the non-custodial biological parent?

In the event that the biological parent has a functioning job in the kid's life, this militates against a finding of in loco parentis.
Note that the rights go the two different ways; an individual in loco parentis can apply for custody.

Applying this to the case at bar, plainly the stepfather remained in the place of a parent to Jessica; he spoke to Jessica and the world that he accepted full responsibility of parents for her. He was the only dad she had known, and the parties persuaded he was her biological dad. After the partition he proceeded with his visits with Jessica until his entrance was ended with the two young girls.

End-Notes:

1. 1999 1 S.C.R. 242