The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications. In order to fully understand the outcomes of this case, it is necessary to briefly review the legal issues that prompted the appellants and respondent to pursue legal action. The initial factor was the apprehension of a six week old infant named Leticia Grace Woods, on October 20th, 1976, by C.A.S. of central Manitoba. Upon removing her from her mother’s custody, in an effort to protect her, she was placed in a foster home as stipulated in the Child Welfare Act, C.C.S.M., c. C80. After several months in foster care, Mrs. Woods’, Leticia’s mother consented to a year extension on her daughter’s stay in Society care, followed by an additional six month period. At which time Leticia was situated in the foster home of Sandra Ransom (later Racine) and Lorne Ransom. In March of 1978, when the extended period had ended, Leticia was returned to her mother. At this point, the Racine’s had developed an attachment and sense of responsibility for her care, which impelled them to visit Leticia with Mrs. Woods’ permission. On the second visit, in May of 1978, Mrs. Woods authorized the Racine’s to take Leticia home with them. This concept of “taking home” was later disputed by the Racine’s and Mrs. Woods on the basis of intended length of stay. The Racine’s believed that Mrs. Woods intended for Leticia to remain in their home permanently, while Mrs. Woods argued that she had meant a short period of time. Approximately five months later, Mrs. Woods approached the Racine’s, demanding Leticia back. The Racine’s, having taken on the parental role in her life, refused to allow Mrs. Woods to take her. After this incident, Mrs. Woods waited five years before seeking legal counsel