comment on the potential semantic loophole in substantially enhanced in C-560 merits consideration in light of historical evidence that the current maximum contact provisions in the Divorce Act have been trivialized by the courts. However, it must be read within the entire context of the Bill.access page ...
comment on the potential semantic loophole in substantially enhanced in C-560 merits consideration in light of historical evidence that the current maximum contact provisions in the Divorce Act have been trivialized by the courts. However, it must be read within the entire context of the Bill.
Bill C-560 starts from the premise that the “best interests of the child”(BIOC)as an undefined term constitutes the fundamental flaw in the Divorce Act providing a legislative loophole for unfettered judicial discretion. It bears noting the same fatal flaw is common to all family law legislation in the anglosphere even extending to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. The resulting similarity in legal outcomes is therefore not some statistical fluke.
More than any other anglosphere legislation to date, C-560 targets this major flaw by contextually defining BIOC in terms of shared parenting and vice-versa. The Bill adopts the presumptive starting point of equal parental responsibility and equal parental access to the child found in intact homes and requires the closest match barring demonstrably overriding considerations under the court’s inherent parens patriae jurisdiction. It does not guarantee 50:50, nor was that the intent, as parens patriae always applies.
Bill C-560 ( previously C-422 in the last parliament) was planned as a major down payment on family law reform and, while it covers several areas beyond equal shared parenting, it is not comprehensive in its coverage of family law matters- nor was it designed to do so. There are certainly other issues to be addressed. The best example of that is Domestic Violence, another undefined term in family law. This topic that will most certainly come up in Committee Stage and public consultations should the Bill pass Second Reading. This will be the area where we need to be prepared to provide input on behalf of Canadian families.
I, too, encourage members to read C-560 <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6375891&File=24> , but for different reasons. With the Bill released from Committee on Feb 11th to be placed on the Order paper for Second Reading (in March), this represents the high water mark of family law reform since the “For the Sake of the Children” report on Shared Parenting in 1998. This Bill represents the consensual view of the Canadian FRM (Family Rights Movement) under the auspices of the CEPC big-tent council, direct sponsorship by Maurice Vellacott MP together with tangible secondary support by Liberal and Green Party MPs as well as moral support from individual NDP MPs. This is democracy in action and should be celebrated.
We are now entering a crucial stage of securing all-party support for Second Reading. Unless parties release their members for a free vote, the key Go/No-Go decision regarding support for C-560 will likely be made by PMO and party executives in the next several weeks. This is a time to close ranks and support our organizational lobbying initiatives in support of C-560.
United in Purpose & Spirit,
George Piskor
Category:
SharedParenting