An Alberta woman has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on a case that could have sweeping implications on the rights of single parents to make decisions about their families and relationships.

The woman, known as Jane Doe, wants to absolve her common-law husband of legal obligations to her child and has sought leave to appeal her case to the high court.

She became pregnant by artificial insemination with another man's sperm. The common-law couple signed a pre-parenting agreement stating that the husband, John Doe, would not be considered the child's father.

Their identities are protected by a publication ban.

Last February, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against the agreement, saying that John Doe will inevitably act in the role of father since he will be living with the child.

The mother contends that the Alberta ruling failed to recognize her charter rights to make fundamental choices on behalf of her child.

"The existence and scope of a parental liberty right under Section 7 of the charter is of importance to all families, particularly those families which may not fall within the traditional concept of the one-female-and-one-male-parent family," wrote her lawyer, Ronald Robinson, in documents filed with the Supreme Court.

"The current uncertainty in the law … impedes the ability of parents, including single parents by choice, to make decisions of fundamental importance, and structure their family circumstances without the threat of state-assisted interference in those rights."

Alberta Crown lawyers have filed documents arguing against having the high court hear the appeal, which centres on Alberta's Family Law Act.

The Crown contends the case is not about the constitutional rights of single parents and that Jane Doe is not a single parent by choice because she lives with a male partner.

"This case is about a woman who decided to have a child while residing with a male partner and who continues to reside with her partner and her child," say the documents.

"There is no evidence that the relationship between the applicant and her partner as it involves the child is common among Canadians. Nor are the rights that the applicant alleges to have charter protection [or] commonly sought by mothers or fathers across Canada."

In the Appeal Court ruling in February, Justice Ronald Berger said the fact that Jane and John Doe remain together demonstrates his intention to act in the role of father.

"Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? When it stumbles? When the soother needs to be replaced? When the diaper needs to be changed?" Berger asked.

Neither Robinson nor Crown lawyers would comment on the leave-to-appeal application.

But legal and constitutional experts say the case could have sweeping implications for Canadians and they hope the Supreme Court will hear the appeal.

Brenda Cossman, a family law professor at the University of Toronto, said the 2001 census listed 1.3 million Canadian families as being headed by single parents, the majority of them women.