The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday dismissed an appeal from an Alberta woman who wanted to absolve her common-law partner of any parenting responsibility for her child.

As is its custom, the court did not give a reason for its ruling in the case, called Jane Doe v. the Queen.

The Calgary woman gave birth to a child in August 2005 after getting artifically inseminated  with an anonymous donor's sperm. Her common-law husband had said he didn't want the parental or financial responsibility of a child.

She and her common-law husband had asked the courts to allow them to enter into a binding, written agreement absolving her husband of parental responsibility under Alberta's Family Law Act.

In February the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against the agreement, saying the common-law husband would inevitably take on a parental role because he lives with the child.

"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?" asked Justice Ronald Berger in his February ruling.

Jane Doe had argued it was her charter right to make parental choices on her child's behalf.

Alberta Crown lawyers filed arguments against her leave to appeal request, which the Supreme Court denied with costs.

The case is considered to have important implications for the rights of single parents to make decisions about their families and relationships.