AN EQUAL PARENTING LAW
—A NECESSITY
It is no secret that the family law and family courts in Canada are a mess. The family courts have a huge backlog caused by the traditional adversarial system of lawyers on each side, arguing on behalf of their client, for better or worse. It gives rise to wild accusations and parental alienation caused by pitting one spouse against the other. What do the judges actually know and understand about the situation, as they struggle to figure out what is best for all the parties, or, more specifically, what is in the “best interests of the child”? If that is the criteria, then why is it, according to Statistics Canada, that the 2011 General Social Survey on Families data reveal that after separation or divorce, 70% of children reside with their mother, with only 15% living with their father, while 9% reported that the children spent equal time living between the two parents’ homes and 8% indicated other living arrangements.
Study after study shows that it is critical for children to have both their parents closely involved in their daily lives—not just visiting, but as an immediate, fully involved permanent presence.
July 2014 • Page 5
Hopefully, these statistics don’t indicate that only 15% of fathers are deemed capable of looking after their own
children, while 70% of mothers are regarded as the superior parent. No, it is simply easier to award the mother custody since she is usually the parent providing the most regular care for the child.
Even when the father has been granted a court order for access to his children, it is frequently not complied with. The mother need only claim that the children don’t want to visit their father, and that’s that. The father can bring a legal action against the mother for failure to obey the court order, or even for contempt of court—but few do so for financial as well as emotional reasons.
In addition, the family court system (including facilities, judges, court personnel, filings, therapists, mediation assessors and others), cost the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars each year. What can never be calculated is the harm caused to the children by a separation or divorce. The children carry the sorrow of their parents’ separation or divorce with them to their graves. Coping—yes, suffering—yes, surviving—yes, but at a terrible price.
Study after study shows that it is critical for children to have both their parents closely involved in their daily
lives—not just visiting, but as an immediate, fully involved permanent presence. Equal parenting doesn’t mean precise
equality, which is not achievable anyway. Typically, parents’ and children’s schedules are incapable of precise measurement but it does mean shared decisions about their child’s life—medical, educational, religious, sports, etc. Obviously, if one of the parents is abusive, an alcoholic or a drug addict, etc. then equal parenting should not be considered, but, otherwise, it should be a first presumption when determining custody.
Bill C-560: Equal Parenting
Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott introduced Bill C-560 into Parliament which, if passed, would have required a
rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting for children of divorcing parents. This was not a new idea. In 1998, a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons also made this sensible proposal, but it was never implemented.
Mr. Vellacott’s Bill went down to defeat 80–174 on May 28, 2014. Why?
1. Resistance from the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) which argued that the bill was not in the child’s
“best interests”. Of course, it was. The real objection for the CBA was that an equal parenting law would
curtail family law litigation, which is the backbone of many legal practices. In effect, it was in the CBA’s “best interests” to protect its members by maintaining the current system of adversarial litigation to settle family
disputes.
2. Some of the lawyers still roaming the halls of the Justice Department are the female legal officers who
were appointed by the former Liberal government.These are feminists through and through, who glittered
and shone under the light provided by former feminist Minister of Justice Anne McLellan and feminist admirer,
Allan Rock. They would never accept Bill C-560 and would do all they could to derail it.
The bill was not perfect and did include some triggers to upset some, but not enough to defeat it.
The bill was defeated directly by the fact that the Conservative government ordered the Cabinet and
Parliamentary Secretaries to vote against the bill, which theyobediently did, although the backbenchers were given a free vote. Even the social conservative Cabinet Ministers, such as Jason Kenney, Kelly Block, Ed Fast, Rob Nicholson and Parliamentary Secretaries Paul Calandra, Bob Dechert and Kevin Sorenson voted against the bill. What was going on with the Conservatives, who had previously passed a resolution in support of equal parenting at a policy convention in 2005? Perhaps the answer may lie in the statement made during the debate by Justice Parliamentary Secretary Bob Dechert, who said that the government would “review the custody and access provisions of the Divorce Act and, in so doing, will consider how it can encourage parents to rely less on adversarial processes and focus on the needs of their children”. A breakthrough? Perhaps. Also, Senator Anne Cools, undoubtedly the most knowledgeable parliamentarian on the tangled issue of family law, introduced her own bill on equal parenting in March, 2014. Senate Bill S-216 is a solid, thoughtful bill that may yet see the light of day.
Senator Cools’ bill requires that no divorce will be granted unless a “parenting plan” has been provided to the court. The parenting plan sets out the responsibilities and authority of each parent with respect to the care, development and upbringing of the child of the marriage on such matters as:
• The child’s place of residence or, residential schedule;
• The allocation of time spent by the child under the care of each parent;
• The allocation and exercise of decision-making authority relating to the child’s education, health, and moral or religious upbringing;
• A process for resolving disputes between the parents as to the interpretation or implementation of the plan;
• A process for revising or updating the plan; and
• Any other matter relating to the child’s care, development and upbringing.
Bill S-216 also provides that the dissolution of the parents’ marriage does not alter the shared responsibility of
the parents for the child, nor does it sever the nature of the parent-child bond. It also provides that the child has a right to know and be cared for by each parent; the child has a right to spend time with and communicate with other persons with whom the child has a significant relationship, such as grandparents or other relatives; and that each parent retains authority and responsibility for the care, development and upbringing of the child, including the right to participate in major decisions respecting the child’s health, education, and moral or religious upbringing. In effect, this bill is excellent because it defines what is actually meant by “equal parenting”. It is hoped that Senator Cools’ bill will be passed by the Senate and then referred to the House of Commons for passage. Please write to Senator Cools to thank her for her excellent bill and to encourage her in regard to having it passed by Parliament. Her address is as follows:
Honourable Senator Anne Cools
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
One thing is absolutely certain: the present, adversarial system of settling family disputes is highly damaging. According to polls, 80% of Canadians agree with this and want changes in the family court system.
Real Women of Canada • www.realwomenofcanada.ca
—A NECESSITY
It is no secret that the family law and family courts in Canada are a mess. The family courts have a huge backlog caused by the traditional adversarial system of lawyers on each side, arguing on behalf of their client, for better or worse. It gives rise to wild accusations and parental alienation caused by pitting one spouse against the other. What do the judges actually know and understand about the situation, as they struggle to figure out what is best for all the parties, or, more specifically, what is in the “best interests of the child”? If that is the criteria, then why is it, according to Statistics Canada, that the 2011 General Social Survey on Families data reveal that after separation or divorce, 70% of children reside with their mother, with only 15% living with their father, while 9% reported that the children spent equal time living between the two parents’ homes and 8% indicated other living arrangements.
Study after study shows that it is critical for children to have both their parents closely involved in their daily lives—not just visiting, but as an immediate, fully involved permanent presence.
July 2014 • Page 5
Hopefully, these statistics don’t indicate that only 15% of fathers are deemed capable of looking after their own
children, while 70% of mothers are regarded as the superior parent. No, it is simply easier to award the mother custody since she is usually the parent providing the most regular care for the child.
Even when the father has been granted a court order for access to his children, it is frequently not complied with. The mother need only claim that the children don’t want to visit their father, and that’s that. The father can bring a legal action against the mother for failure to obey the court order, or even for contempt of court—but few do so for financial as well as emotional reasons.
In addition, the family court system (including facilities, judges, court personnel, filings, therapists, mediation assessors and others), cost the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars each year. What can never be calculated is the harm caused to the children by a separation or divorce. The children carry the sorrow of their parents’ separation or divorce with them to their graves. Coping—yes, suffering—yes, surviving—yes, but at a terrible price.
Study after study shows that it is critical for children to have both their parents closely involved in their daily
lives—not just visiting, but as an immediate, fully involved permanent presence. Equal parenting doesn’t mean precise
equality, which is not achievable anyway. Typically, parents’ and children’s schedules are incapable of precise measurement but it does mean shared decisions about their child’s life—medical, educational, religious, sports, etc. Obviously, if one of the parents is abusive, an alcoholic or a drug addict, etc. then equal parenting should not be considered, but, otherwise, it should be a first presumption when determining custody.
Bill C-560: Equal Parenting
Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott introduced Bill C-560 into Parliament which, if passed, would have required a
rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting for children of divorcing parents. This was not a new idea. In 1998, a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons also made this sensible proposal, but it was never implemented.
Mr. Vellacott’s Bill went down to defeat 80–174 on May 28, 2014. Why?
1. Resistance from the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) which argued that the bill was not in the child’s
“best interests”. Of course, it was. The real objection for the CBA was that an equal parenting law would
curtail family law litigation, which is the backbone of many legal practices. In effect, it was in the CBA’s “best interests” to protect its members by maintaining the current system of adversarial litigation to settle family
disputes.
2. Some of the lawyers still roaming the halls of the Justice Department are the female legal officers who
were appointed by the former Liberal government.These are feminists through and through, who glittered
and shone under the light provided by former feminist Minister of Justice Anne McLellan and feminist admirer,
Allan Rock. They would never accept Bill C-560 and would do all they could to derail it.
The bill was not perfect and did include some triggers to upset some, but not enough to defeat it.
The bill was defeated directly by the fact that the Conservative government ordered the Cabinet and
Parliamentary Secretaries to vote against the bill, which theyobediently did, although the backbenchers were given a free vote. Even the social conservative Cabinet Ministers, such as Jason Kenney, Kelly Block, Ed Fast, Rob Nicholson and Parliamentary Secretaries Paul Calandra, Bob Dechert and Kevin Sorenson voted against the bill. What was going on with the Conservatives, who had previously passed a resolution in support of equal parenting at a policy convention in 2005? Perhaps the answer may lie in the statement made during the debate by Justice Parliamentary Secretary Bob Dechert, who said that the government would “review the custody and access provisions of the Divorce Act and, in so doing, will consider how it can encourage parents to rely less on adversarial processes and focus on the needs of their children”. A breakthrough? Perhaps. Also, Senator Anne Cools, undoubtedly the most knowledgeable parliamentarian on the tangled issue of family law, introduced her own bill on equal parenting in March, 2014. Senate Bill S-216 is a solid, thoughtful bill that may yet see the light of day.
Senator Cools’ bill requires that no divorce will be granted unless a “parenting plan” has been provided to the court. The parenting plan sets out the responsibilities and authority of each parent with respect to the care, development and upbringing of the child of the marriage on such matters as:
• The child’s place of residence or, residential schedule;
• The allocation of time spent by the child under the care of each parent;
• The allocation and exercise of decision-making authority relating to the child’s education, health, and moral or religious upbringing;
• A process for resolving disputes between the parents as to the interpretation or implementation of the plan;
• A process for revising or updating the plan; and
• Any other matter relating to the child’s care, development and upbringing.
Bill S-216 also provides that the dissolution of the parents’ marriage does not alter the shared responsibility of
the parents for the child, nor does it sever the nature of the parent-child bond. It also provides that the child has a right to know and be cared for by each parent; the child has a right to spend time with and communicate with other persons with whom the child has a significant relationship, such as grandparents or other relatives; and that each parent retains authority and responsibility for the care, development and upbringing of the child, including the right to participate in major decisions respecting the child’s health, education, and moral or religious upbringing. In effect, this bill is excellent because it defines what is actually meant by “equal parenting”. It is hoped that Senator Cools’ bill will be passed by the Senate and then referred to the House of Commons for passage. Please write to Senator Cools to thank her for her excellent bill and to encourage her in regard to having it passed by Parliament. Her address is as follows:
Honourable Senator Anne Cools
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
One thing is absolutely certain: the present, adversarial system of settling family disputes is highly damaging. According to polls, 80% of Canadians agree with this and want changes in the family court system.
Real Women of Canada • www.realwomenofcanada.ca
