Private bill for ‘equal parenting’ goes on Parliament’s order
Has support from Laval-les Îles Liberal MP Raymonde Folco
Published July 15 , 2009
By Martin C. Barry • TLN
‘This law if passed would make it mandatory for two parents who are divorcing to discuss with either a mediator or a judge how they would divide the time with the children’ – Raymonde Folco
In the weeks preceding this past Fathers’ Day, there were so many different interpretations of who is a dad, some may have found it difficult to distinguish just what is a father these days. Oprah featured a single dad with nine children, and the National Post didn’t do much for the idea of fathers as role models when it ran an article on the importance of sperm in child development.
Divorce Act amendments
Now a small group of legislators from different sides of the House of Commons in Ottawa have gotten together in an attempt to address some of the real issues. Bill C-422, to amend the Divorce Act in favor of a presumption of equal parenting, has been tabled by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, with the support of Laval-les Îles Liberal Raymonde Folco and Lévis-Bellechasse Conservative Steven Blaney.
At least one purpose of the proposed amendment would be to counter an overall bias many people feel currently exists in divorce and child custody law which generally favours women. “I had already met with a group that was trying to get a private member’s bill on this,” Folco said in an interview with TLN.
‘No hesitation’: Folco
“They thought I would be interested because of some of the other things I’d done in Parliament. So I said I would be very happy to second it. This is the kind of bill where I felt no hesitation at all. If he hadn’t tabled it, I would have. This law if passed would make it mandatory for two parents who are divorcing to discuss with either a mediator or a judge how they would divide the time with the children.
“Equal parenting means that 50 per cent of the time a child would be with one parent and 50 per cent with the other,” she continued. “That’s so that the two parents can come together for the good of the child. If one of the parents felt that during the week it was impossible for him or her to have the child and they would rather have him or her on the weekend, that would be something to be discussed between the two parents with a mediator. But the basic line is a 50-50 proposition, and this is to help the child grow up with the help of both parents.”
Supporters pleased
The Canadian Equal Parenting Council, a coalition of 40 member organizations and worldwide affiliates pushing for the recognition of presumptive equal parenting as being in the best interest of the child, is pleased with the proposed amendment. “We have had the real pleasure of working on this legislation with Mr. Vellacott who truly has the same interests as our coalition ― protecting the best interests of children after divorce,” said Kris Titus, co-president of the CEPC.
The CEPC says it agrees with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s position on the issue and has called on all parties and their leaders to stand by their commitments to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Canada in 1992, and to follow recommendations made in the For the Sake of the Children Parliamentary report of 1998.
Fathers 4 Justice
Regarding the move to shared parenting legislative changes, Ignatieff wrote in his 2002 book The Rights Revolution, “These are sensible and overdue suggestions.” Fathers 4 Justice Canada, a controversial group that has attracted a fair bit of media attention in recent years with tactics such as scaling tall structures like bridges where they hang banners, fully supports the proposed changes.
"Men in Canada need to quite literally start protecting themselves from the flawed family law system,” the group said in a statement reacting to Bill C-422. “Right now the focus is on litigation not restoration. Money talks and Dads are forced to walk away because they cannot afford to fight for their children any longer. We need to start asking why they should even have to. Dads are just not seen as important."
Source: http://www.lavalnews.ca/articles/TLN1714/parentingBill171408.html
Showing posts with label equal parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equal parenting. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
BILL C-422 Equal Parenting - Original Document
Section Home
2nd Session, 40th Parliament,
2e session, 40e législature,
57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009
57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009
house of commons of canada
chambre des communes du canada
BILL C-422
PROJET DE LOI C-422
An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that amendments to the Divorce Act are necessary in order to
(a) clarify the purpose and underlying principles of the Act,
(b) encourage divorcing spouses to assume more responsibility for their affairs, with less reliance on adversarial processes,
(c) promote joint responsibility and joint decision-making by spouses in respect of ongoing child care, nurturing, and development,
(d) establish that the interests of the child are best served through maximal ongoing pa- rental involvement with the child, and that the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is the starting point for judicial deliberations,
(e) clarify relocation considerations by plac- ing the onus on the relocating parent to maintain continuity of relationship, and
(f) provide for consistent collection of court statistics;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur le divorce (partage égal du rôle parental) et d'autres lois en conséquence
Attendu :
que le Parlement du Canada reconnaît la nécessité de modifier la Loi sur le divorce afin :
a) d’en préciser l’objet et les principes fondamentaux,
b) d’inciter les époux en instance de divorce à assumer davantage leurs responsabilités et à recourir dans une moins grande mesure aux procédures contradictoires,
c) de promouvoir le partage entre époux de la responsabilité et de la prise de décision en ce qui concerne les soins, le soutien et le développement continus de l’enfant,
d) de déterminer que les intérêts de l’enfant sont mieux servis par l’engagement maximal continu des parents auprès de lui, et que la présomption réfutable de partage égal du rôle parental constitue le point de départ de l’examen judiciaire,
e) de simplifier les questions relatives au déménagement en imposant au père ou à la mère qui déménage le fardeau de maintenir la continuité de la relation,
f) de prévoir la collecte systématique de statistiques judiciaires,
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :
R.S., c. 3 (2nd Supp.)
DIVORCE ACT
LOI SUR LE DIVORCE L.R., ch. 3 (2e suppl.)
1. (1) The definitions “custody” and “custody order” in subsection 2(1) of the Act are repealed.
1. (1) Les définitions de « garde » et « ordonnance de garde », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, sont abrogées.
(2) The definitions “corollary relief proceeding” and “divorce proceeding” in subsection 2(1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les définitions de « action en divorce » et « action en mesures accessoires », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, sont respectivement remplacées par ce qui suit :
“corollary relief proceeding”
« action en mesures accessoires »
“corollary relief proceeding” means a proceeding in a court in which either or both former spouses seek a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order;
“divorce proceeding”
« action en divorce »
“divorce proceeding” means a proceeding in a court in which either or both spouses seek a divorce alone or together with a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order;
« action en divorce » Action exercée devant un tribunal par l’un des époux ou conjointement par eux en vue d’obtenir un divorce assorti ou non d’une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un enfant, d’une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un époux ou d’une ordonnance parentale. « action en divorce »
“divorce proceeding”
« action en mesures accessoires » Action exercée devant un tribunal par l’un des ex-époux ou conjointement par eux en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un enfant, une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un époux ou une ordonnance parentale. « action en mesures accessoires »
“corollary relief proceeding”
(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
(3) Le paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi est modifié par adjonction, selon l’ordre alphabétique, de ce qui suit :
“parenting”
« rôle parental »
“parenting” means the act of assuming the role of a parent to a child, including custody and all of the rights and responsibilities commonly and historically associated with the role of a parent;
“parenting order”
« ordonnance parentale »
“parenting order” means an interim order or a final order made under subsection 16(1) and includes a custody order made under this Act before the coming into force of this definition;
“relative”
« membre de la famille »
“relative” means, in relation to a child,
(a) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepbrother or stepsister,
(b) a grandparent,
(c) the spouse or common-law partner of either parent,
(d) an uncle or aunt,
(e) a nephew, niece, or cousin, and
(f) any other person who has the status of any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) according to the cultural norms of either parent;
« membre de la famille » À l’égard d’un enfant : « membre de la famille »
“relative”
a) son frère, sa soeur, son demi-frère, sa demi-soeur ou son frère ou sa soeur par mariage ou union de fait;
b) son grand-père ou sa grand-mère;
c) l’époux ou le conjoint de fait de son père ou de sa mère;
d) son oncle ou sa tante;
e) son neveu, sa nièce, son cousin ou sa cousine;
f) quiconque a le statut d’une personne visée à l'un des alinéas a) à e) selon les normes culturelles du père ou de la mère de l’enfant.
« ordonnance parentale » Ordonnance provisoire ou définitive rendue en vertu du paragraphe 16(1). S’entend en outre d’une ordonnance de garde rendue sous le régime de la présente loi avant l’entrée en vigueur de la présente définition. « ordonnance parentale »
“parenting order”
« rôle parental » Le fait d’agir à titre de père ou de mère d’un enfant, y compris la garde de celui-ci ainsi que les droits et les responsabilités communément et traditionnellement associés au rôle de père ou de mère. « rôle parental »
“parenting”
2. The Divorce Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:
2. La Loi sur le divorce est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 2, de ce qui suit :
PURPOSE
OBJET
Purpose
2.1 (1) The purpose of this Act is to provide for the expeditious and equitable dissolution of a marriage and to provide for the care of the children of the marriage.
2.1 (1) La présente loi a pour objet d’assurer la dissolution expéditive et équitable du mariage et de pourvoir aux soins des enfants à charge. Objet
Principles
(2) The following principles are to be taken into account in the interpretation and application of this Act:
(a) spouses who are undergoing a divorce should be encouraged to seek their own solutions with reduced reliance on court intervention; and
(b) every child has the right
(i) to know and be cared for by both parents,
(ii) to know his or her relatives and enjoy his or her culture, and
(iii) to spend time and communicate with both parents on a regular basis, and to maintain continuity of relationships with relatives.
(2) Pour l’interprétation et l’application de la présente loi, les principes ci-après doivent être pris en compte : Principes
a) les époux en instance de divorce devraient être incités à trouver leurs propres solutions en recourant aux tribunaux dans une moins grande mesure;
b) tout enfant a le droit :
(i) de connaître ses deux parents et de recevoir des soins de chacun d’eux,
(ii) de connaître les membres de sa famille et de jouir de sa culture,
(iii) de passer du temps avec ses deux parents et de communiquer avec eux de façon régulière et de maintenir des relations continues avec les membres de sa famille.
3. Subsection 6(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
3. Le paragraphe 6(3) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Transfer of variation proceeding
(3) Where an application for a variation order in respect of a parenting order is made in a variation proceeding to a court in a province and is opposed and the child of the marriage in respect of whom the variation order is sought is most substantially connected with another province, the court may, on application by a former spouse or on its own motion, transfer the variation proceeding to a court in that other province.
(3) Le tribunal d’une province saisi d’une demande d’ordonnance modificative concernant une ordonnance parentale peut, sur demande d’un ex-époux ou d’office, renvoyer l’affaire au tribunal d’une autre province dans le cas où la demande est contestée et où l’enfant à charge concerné par l’ordonnance modificative a ses principales attaches dans cette province. Renvoi de l’action en modification
4. Subsection 9(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
4. Le paragraphe 9(2) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Duty of legal adviser
(2) It is the duty of every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of a spouse in a divorce proceeding
(a) to discuss with the spouse the advisability of negotiating the matters that may be the subject of a support order or a parenting order;
(b) to inform the spouse of the available resources for counselling, mediation, parental coordination and family arbitration that might be able to assist the spouses in co-parenting in the best interests of the child; and
(c) to discuss with the spouse the advisability of providing for the use of the resources referred to in paragraph (b) in a parenting order.
(2) Il incombe également à l’avocat : Devoirs de l'avocat
a) de discuter avec son client de l’opportunité de négocier les points qui peuvent faire l’objet d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou d’une ordonnance parentale;
b) de renseigner son client sur les ressources disponibles en matière de consultation, de médiation, de coordination parentale et d’arbitrage familial qui sont susceptibles d’aider les époux à exercer conjointement leur rôle parental dans l’intérêt de l’enfant;
c) de discuter avec son client de l’opportunité de prévoir dans une ordonnance parentale l’utilisation des ressources mentionnées à l’alinéa b).
5. Subsection 11(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
5. Le paragraphe 11(4) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Definition of “collusion”
(4) In this section, “collusion” means an agreement or conspiracy to which an applicant for a divorce is either directly or indirectly a party for the purpose of subverting the administration of justice, and includes any agreement, understanding or arrangement to fabricate or suppress evidence or to deceive the court, but does not include an agreement to the extent that it provides for the separation of the parties or for financial support, division of property or the parenting of any child of the marriage.
(4) Au présent article, « collusion » s’entend d’une entente ou d’un complot auxquels le demandeur est partie — directement ou indirectement — en vue de déjouer l’administration de la justice, ainsi que de tout accord, entente ou autre arrangement visant à fabriquer ou à supprimer des éléments de preuve ou à tromper le tribunal, à l’exclusion de toute entente prévoyant la séparation de fait des parties, l’aide financière, le partage des biens ou l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge. Définition de « collusion »
6. The heading before section 16 of the Act is replaced by the following:
6. L’intertitre précédant l’article 16 de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
PARENTING ORDERS
ORDONNANCES PARENTALES
7. (1) Subsections 16(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
7. (1) Les paragraphes 16(1) et (2) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
Parenting order
16. (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an order respecting the parenting of any or all children of the marriage.
16. (1) Le tribunal compétent peut, sur demande des époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne, rendre une ordonnance relative au rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge ou de l’un d’eux. Ordonnance parentale
Interim order for parenting
(2) Where an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the parenting of any or all children of the marriage pending determination of the application under subsection (1). In making an interim order, the court shall take into consideration the same factors that it is required to consider when making a final order.
(2) Le tribunal peut, sur demande des époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne, rendre une ordonnance provisoire relative au rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge ou de l’un d’eux, dans l’attente d’une décision sur la demande visée au paragraphe (1). Lorsqu'il rend une telle ordonnance, le tribunal tient compte des mêmes facteurs qu'il considère lorsqu’il rend une ordonnance définitive. Ordonnance parentale provisoire
(2) Subsections 16(4) to (10) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les paragraphes 16(4) à (10) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
Making parenting orders
(4) Subject to subsection (5), in making a parenting order, including an interim order, the court shall:
(a) apply the presumption that allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of a child of the marriage; and
(b) apply the presumption that equal parental responsibility is in the best interests of a child of the marriage.
(4) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance parentale, y compris une ordonnance provisoire, le tribunal : Ordonnances parentales
a) applique la présomption selon laquelle le partage égal du temps parental entre les époux est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant à charge;
b) applique la présomption selon laquelle le partage égal de la responsabilité parentale est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant à charge.
Non-application of presumptions
(5) The presumptions referred to in subsection (4) are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or parental responsibility other than equally.
(5) Les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4) sont réfutées s’il est établi que l’intérêt de l’enfant serait considérablement mieux servi par un partage inégal du temps parental ou de la responsabilité parentale. Non-application des présomptions
Maximum practicable contact
(6) If the presumptions referred to in subsection (4) are rebutted in accordance with subsection (5), the court shall, in making an order under this section, nevertheless give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have the maximum practicable contact with each spouse that is compatible with the best interests of the child.
(6) Dans les cas où les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4) sont réfutées par application du paragraphe (5), le tribunal, lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, applique néanmoins le principe selon lequel l’enfant à charge devrait avoir avec chaque époux le plus de contact possible compatible avec son propre intérêt. Contact maximum possible
Factors to consider
(7) In making an order under this section in a case where subsection (6) applies, the court shall have regard to
(a) the capacity of the spouses to arrange for parenting time given the distance between their respective residences;
(b) the willingness of the spouses to communicate and utilize appropriate services to resolve disputes;
(c) the working schedules of the spouses and availability of caretakers; and
(d) the effect of any arrangement on the well-being of a child of the marriage.
(7) Dans les cas visés au paragraphe (6), lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, le tribunal tient compte : Facteurs
a) de l’aptitude des époux de conclure des arrangements concernant le temps parental étant donné la distance entre leurs résidences respectives;
b) de la volonté des époux à communiquer et à utiliser les services indiqués pour résoudre les différends;
c) de l’horaire de travail des époux et de la disponibilité de services de garde d’enfants;
d) de l’incidence de tout arrangement sur le bien-être de l’enfant à charge.
Assistance to spouses
(8) With the consent of the spouses, the court may appoint a counsellor, advisor, mediator or parental coordinator, with or without arbitral powers, to assist the spouses in co-parenting in the best interests of the child.
(8) Avec le consentement des époux, le tribunal peut nommer un conseiller, un médiateur ou un coordonnateur parental, avec ou sans pouvoirs d’arbitrage, pour aider les époux à exercer conjointement leur rôle parental dans l’intérêt de l’enfant. Aide aux époux
Information
(9) Unless the court orders otherwise, each spouse may make inquiries regarding the health, education and welfare of a child of the marriage and is entitled to be provided with all relevant information in response to those inquiries. The court may make a multi-directional parenting order under this section that directs a person, organization or entity to provide any such information to a spouse.
(9) Sauf ordonnance contraire du tribunal, chaque époux peut demander des renseignements relatifs à la santé, à l’éducation et au bien-être de l’enfant à charge et a le droit de recevoir tous les renseignements pertinents en réponse à cette demande. Le tribunal peut rendre une ordonnance parentale à portée élargie, conformément au présent article, dans laquelle il oblige une personne, un organisme ou une entité à fournir de tels renseignements à l’un des époux. Renseignements
Terms and conditions
(10) The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose any other terms, conditions or restrictions that are compatible with sections 16 and 16.1 as it thinks fit and just.
(10) La durée de validité de l’ordonnance rendue par le tribunal conformément au présent article peut être déterminée ou indéterminée ou dépendre d’un événement précis; l’ordonnance peut être assujettie aux modalités ou restrictions,— compatibles avec les articles 16 et 16.1 — que le tribunal estime justes et appropriées. Modalités de l’ordonnance
Order respecting change of residence
(11) Without limiting the generality of subsections (4) and (6), the court may include in an order under this section a term requiring any person who has parental responsibility in respect of a child of the marriage and who intends to change the place of residence of the child to notify, at least 30 days before the change or within such other period before the change as the court may specify, the other spouse of the change, the date on which the change will be made and the new place of residence of the child, as well as the telephone numbers, email address and other contact information for the child.
(11) Sans préjudice de la portée générale des paragraphes (4) et (6), le tribunal peut inclure dans l’ordonnance qu’il rend au titre du présent article une disposition obligeant la personne qui a une responsabilité parentale à l’égard d’un enfant à charge et qui a l’intention de changer le lieu de résidence de celui-ci d’informer au moins trente jours à l’avance, ou dans le délai antérieur au changement que lui impartit le tribunal, l’autre époux de la date du changement et du nouveau lieu de résidence de l’enfant, ainsi que des numéros de téléphone, adresse électronique et autres coordonnées de l’enfant. Ordonnance relative au changement de résidence
Prohibition against change of residence
(12) Despite subsection (11) and without limiting the generality of subsections (4) and (6), if changing a place of residence of a child of the marriage would make compliance with a parenting order impractical or unreasonable, the court shall include in an order under this section a term prohibiting a change in a place of residence of the child without the written consent of both spouses.
(12) Malgré le paragraphe (11) et sans préjudice de la portée générale des paragraphes (4) et (6), dans le cas où le changement de résidence d’un enfant à charge rendrait le respect d’une ordonnance parentale difficilement réalisable ou déraisonnable, le tribunal inclut dans l’ordonnance qu’il rend au titre du présent article une disposition interdisant le changement de résidence de l’enfant sans le consentement écrit des deux époux. Changement de résidence interdit
Duty to pay expenses
(13) Unless otherwise agreed by the spouses, the court may order a spouse who changes the place of residence of a child of the marriage to pay any additional reasonable expenses that are necessary in order to maintain, to the greatest extent practicable, the parenting arrangements that were in place before the change.
(13) Sauf entente contraire entre les époux, le tribunal peut ordonner à un époux qui change le lieu de résidence d’un enfant à charge de payer les frais additionnels raisonnables qui sont nécessaires au maintien, dans toute la mesure du possible, du partage du rôle parental antérieur au changement. Obligation de payer les frais
Matters to be considered in making parenting orders
(14) In making a parenting order under this section, the court shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, while taking into account the following:
(a) the presumptions set out in subsection (4), as applicable;
(b) the principle of maximum practicable contact, as described in subsection (6); and
(c) the considerations set out in subsections (15) and (16), with more weight being given to the considerations in subsection (15) than those in subsection (16).
(14) Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance parentale conformément au présent article, le tribunal accorde une importance primordiale à l’intérêt de l’enfant tout en tenant compte des facteurs suivants : Facteurs à considérer
a) les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4), dans la mesure où elles sont applicables;
b) le principe de contact maximum possible, énoncé au paragraphe (6);
c) les critères énoncés au paragraphe (15) et ceux énoncés au paragraphe (16), en accordant une importance plus grande aux premiers.
Primary considerations
(15) The primary considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in aggregate, are
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship and as much contact as is practicable with each of his or her parents;
(b) the continuity of relationships with rel- atives;
(c) the willingness, and the effectiveness of the efforts, of each spouse to facilitate, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other spouse; and
(d) the protection of the child from physical and psychological harm through abuse, neglect or alienation of parental affection.
(15) Les critères fondamentaux — à évaluer dans leur ensemble — dont il faut tenir compte pour déterminer l’intérêt de l’enfant à charge sont les suivants : Critères fondamentaux
a) l’avantage pour l’enfant de maintenir des relations significatives avec son père et sa mère et d’avoir le plus de contact possible avec chacun d’eux;
b) le maintien des relations avec les membres de la famille;
c) la volonté de chaque époux de faciliter, d’encourager et d’appuyer le maintien de la relation parent-enfant avec l’autre époux et l’efficacité des efforts de chacun;
d) la protection de l’enfant contre les sévices physiques et psychologiques du fait de mauvais traitements, de négligence ou d’aliénation de l’affection parentale.
Additional considerations
(16) The additional considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in the aggregate, are
(a) any views that are voluntarily expressed by the child free from influence by either spouse or by any other person, with due weight to be given by the court to these views in accordance with the maturity and comprehension level of the child;
(b) the benefits associated with maintaining a continuity of the culture and traditions of the child;
(c) family violence committed in the pres- ence of the child; and
(d) any event or circumstance since separation that indicates that the behaviour of either spouse is not compatible with the primary considerations set out in subsection (15).
(16) Les critères additionnels — à évaluer dans leur ensemble — dont il faut tenir compte pour déterminer l’intérêt de l’enfant à charge sont les suivants : Critères additionnels
a) l’opinion exprimée volontairement par l’enfant sans influence de la part de l’un ou l’autre époux ou de toute autre personne, le tribunal devant dûment prendre en considération le degré de maturité et de compréhension de l’enfant;
b) les bienfaits associés à la préservation de la culture et des traditions de l’enfant;
c) tout geste de violence familiale commis en présence de l’enfant;
d) tout événement ou toute situation ayant eu lieu depuis la séparation dénotant que le comportement de l’un ou l’autre des époux est incompatible avec les critères fondamentaux établis au paragraphe (15).
Allocation of parenting time
(17) The court shall apply the following principles in allocating parenting time between the spouses to the extent that they are compatible with the best interests of the child:
(a) weekend, vacation, school holiday, fam- ily birthday and religious and cultural holiday time shall be allocated equitably between the spouses, with a view to the spouse with lesser aggregate time having as much of his or her parenting time as possible at times when he or she can be present with the child;
(b) extra-curricular and educational programs and activities shall be scheduled so that they have an equitable impact on the parenting time allocated to each spouse; and
(c) if relatives of the child reside in other cities, the travel requirements of a spouse shall be taken into consideration.
(17) Pour répartir le temps parental entre les époux, le tribunal applique les principes ci-après dans la mesure où ils sont compatibles avec l’intérêt de l’enfant : Répartition du temps parental
a) les fins de semaine, les vacances, les congés scolaires, les anniversaires de la famille et les congés religieux et culturels sont répartis équitablement entre les époux, l’époux qui dispose de moins de temps dans l’ensemble se voyant attribuer autant de temps parental que possible aux moments où il peut être présent auprès de l’enfant;
b) les activités et les programmes parascolaires et éducatifs sont planifiés de manière à avoir un effet équitable sur le temps parental attribué à chaque époux;
c) dans le cas où des membres de la famille de l’enfant résident dans d’autres villes, les exigences relatives aux déplacements d’un époux sont prises en compte.
Reasons for decision
(18) If the court makes an order under this section that does not provide for equal parenting time or equal parenting responsibility, the court shall, in the reasons for its decision, explain in detail why such an order was made notwithstanding the principles for parenting orders set out in this section.
(18) Lorsque l’ordonnance qu’il rend conformément au présent article ne prévoit pas, malgré les principes applicables aux ordonnances parentales énoncés au présent article, le partage égal du temps parental ou de la responsabilité parentale, le tribunal explique de façon détaillée les motifs de sa décision. Motifs
Past conduct
(19) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of a spouse unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that spouse to act as a parent of a child of the marriage.
(19) Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, le tribunal ne tient pas compte de la conduite antérieure d’un époux, sauf si celle-ci est liée à l’aptitude de l’époux à agir à titre de père ou de mère de l’enfant à charge. Conduite antérieure
8. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 16:
8. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l'article 16, de ce qui suit :
Content of parenting order
16.1 Every order made under section 16 shall provide for
(a) the persons with whom a child of the marriage is to live;
(b) the allocation of parenting time between the spouses in accordance with the best interests of the child, as determined under that section;
(c) the allocation of parental responsibility for the child;
(d) the form of consultations that the spouses are to engage in before making decisions that will have a significant impact on the circumstances of the child;
(e) the form of communications that the child is to have with others and their modalities, such as letter mail, telephone or electronic means;
(f) the possession of the child’s records, and, if applicable, any restrictions that relate to sharing those records;
(g) the dispute resolution procedures that are to be followed when needed, including, if appropriate, the names of individuals who are to be consulted;
(h) rules applicable to change of residence, as set out in section 16;
(i) child support;
(j) the identification of any parts of the order that have been issued on consent; and
(k) the name of the judge.
16.1 Toute ordonnance rendue en vertu de l’article 16 prévoit : Contenu de l’ordonnance parentale
a) le nom des personnes avec lesquelles doit vivre l’enfant à charge;
b) le partage du temps parental entre les époux selon l’intérêt de l’enfant tel qu’il a été déterminé conformément à cet article;
c) le partage de la responsabilité parentale à l’égard de l’enfant;
d) le genre de consultations auxquelles doivent participer les époux avant de prendre des décisions qui auront une incidence importante sur la situation de l’enfant;
e) les moyens de communication — et leurs conditions d’utilisation — auxquels l’enfant aura accès, tels le courrier, le téléphone ou des moyens électroniques;
f) la personne ayant la possession des documents relatifs à l’enfant et, le cas échéant, les restrictions relatives à leur communication;
g) la procédure de résolution des différends à suivre en cas de besoin, y compris, s’il y a lieu, le nom des personnes à consulter;
h) les règles applicables au changement de résidence, selon ce que prévoit l’article 16;
i) les aliments de l’enfant;
j) la mention de tout passage de l’ordonnance rendu sur consentement;
k) le nom du juge.
Definitions
16.2 (1) The following definitions apply in sections 16 and 16.1.
“parental responsibility”
« responsabilité parentale »
“parental responsibility” means responsibility for
(a) making long-term decisions with respect to the health, education, welfare, development, religion, culture, name and changes to the living arrangements of a child;
(b) carrying out the everyday tasks that are associated with the care and activities of a child; and
(c) making emergency decisions in respect of a child.
“equal parenting responsibility”
« partage égal de la responsabilité parentale »
“equal parenting responsibility” includes joint responsibility for long-term decision-making and responsibility for daily care during allocated parenting time, but does not include major decisions made by one parent during an emergency situation.
“parenting time”
« temps parental »
“parenting time” means, with respect to a particular spouse and child, the days and times that the spouse is given primary care and responsibility for the daily needs of the child.
16.2 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent aux articles 16 et 16.1. Définitions
« partage égal de la responsabilité parentale » S’entend notamment de la responsabilité conjointe pour la prise de décisions à long terme et de la responsabilité des soins quotidiens pendant le temps parental attribué. Sont exclues de la présente définition les décisions importantes prises par le père ou la mère en cas d’urgence. « partage égal de la responsabilité parentale »
“equal parenting responsibility”
« responsabilité parentale » S’entend de la responsabilité : « responsabilité parentale »
“parental responsibility”
a) de prendre des décisions à long terme relatives à la santé, à l’éducation, au bien-être, au développement, à la religion, à la culture, au nom et aux changements du mode de vie d’un enfant;
b) d’accomplir les tâches quotidiennes associées aux soins et aux activités d’un enfant;
c) de prendre des décisions en cas d’urgence à l’égard d’un enfant.
« temps parental » S’entend, relativement à chaque époux et à un enfant, des jours et des moments pendant lesquels l’époux se voit confier le principal soin de l’enfant et la responsabilité de veiller à ses besoins quotidiens. « temps parental »
“parenting time”
9. (1) Paragraph 17(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
9. (1) L’alinéa 17(1)b) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(b) a parenting order or any provision thereof on application by either or both former spouses or by any other person.
b) une ordonnance parentale ou telle de ses dispositions, sur demande des ex-époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne.
(2) Subsection 17(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Le paragraphe 17(5) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Factors for parenting order
(5) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a parenting order, the court shall satisfy itself that there has been a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of the child of the marriage occurring since the making of the parenting order or the last variation order made in respect of that order, as the case may be. The principles relating to parenting orders set out in section 16 apply to variation orders.
(5) Avant de rendre une ordonnance modificative de l’ordonnance parentale, le tribunal doit s’assurer qu’il est survenu un changement dans les ressources, les besoins ou, d’une façon générale, dans la situation de l’enfant à charge depuis le prononcé de l’ordonnance parentale ou de la dernière ordonnance modificative de celle-ci, le cas échéant. Les principes relatifs aux ordonnances parentales établis à l’article 16 s’appliquent aux ordonnances modificatives. Facteurs considérés pour l’ordonnance parentale
(3) Subsection 17(9) of the Act is repealed.
(3) Le paragraphe 17(9) de la même loi est abrogé.
(4) Subsection 17(11) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) Le paragraphe 17(11) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Copy of order
(11) Where a court makes a variation order in respect of a support order or a parenting order made by another court, it shall send a copy of the variation order, certified by a judge or officer of the court, to that other court.
(11) Le tribunal qui rend une ordonnance modificative d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou parentale rendue par un autre tribunal envoie à celui-ci une copie, certifiée conforme par un de ses juges ou fonctionnaires, de l’ordonnance modificative. Copie de l’ordonnance
10. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 17.1:
10. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 17.1, de ce qui suit :
Variation of existing parenting order
17.2 (1) Where an application is made for a variation order in respect of a parenting order that was made before the coming into force of this section, the court shall determine the application in accordance with the provisions of this Act as they exist at the time the application is before the court.
17.2 (1) Lorsqu’une demande est présentée devant le tribunal en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance modificative d’une ordonnance parentale rendue avant l’entrée en vigueur du présent article, le tribunal statue sur la demande conformément aux dispositions de la présente loi dans leur version à la date d’audition de la demande. Modification d’une ordonnance parentale
Change of circumstances
(2) The coming into force of subsection 17(5), as enacted by subsection 9(2) of this Act, constitutes a change of circumstances within the meaning of subsection 17(5).
(2) L’entrée en vigueur du paragraphe 17(5), dans sa version édictée par le paragraphe 9(2) de la présente loi, constitue un changement de situation au sens du paragraphe 17(5). Changement de situation
Compilation of statistics on parenting orders
17.3 (1) The Minister of Justice may make any arrangements the Minister considers expedient between the provinces, as administrators of the Superior Courts, and any department of the Government of Canada, for the collection, transmission and exchange of any information or statistics concerning parenting orders.
17.3 (1) Le ministre de la Justice peut prendre les dispositions qu’il juge indiquées en vue de la collecte, de la transmission et de l’échange d’informations ou de statistiques relatives aux ordonnances parentales entre les provinces — à titre d’administratrices des cours supérieures — et tout ministère fédéral. Statistiques sur les ordonnances parentales
Regulations concerning the collection of statistics
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations that provide for the collection, compilation and publication of statistics regarding parenting orders. These statistics may include the allocation of parenting time between spouses, the extent of decision-making by each spouse, and the number and ages of the children to which these statistics relate.
(2) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prévoir la collecte, la compilation et la publication de statistiques concernant les ordonnances parentales. Ces statistiques peuvent porter notamment sur la répartition du temps parental entre les époux, l’étendue de la prise de décisions par chaque époux ainsi que le nombre et l’âge des enfants qu’elles visent. Règlements portant sur la collecte de statistiques
11. Paragraph 34(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
11. L’alinéa 34(1)a) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(a) the order were a support order or parenting order, as the case may be; and
a) s’il s’agissait d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou parentale, selon le cas;
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
MODIFICATIONS CORRÉLATIVES
R.S., c. C-46
Criminal Code
Code criminel L.R., ch. C-46
12. Section 282 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
12. L’article 282 du Code criminel est modifié par adjonction, après le paragraphe (2), de ce qui suit :
Definitions
(3) The following definitions apply in this section and section 283.
“custody order”
« ordonnance de garde »
“custody order” includes a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act.
“custody provision”
« disposition d'une ordonnance »
“custody provision” includes a provision relating to the parenting of a child included in a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act.
(3) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et à l’article 283. Définitions
« disposition d’une ordonnance » S’entend notamment d’une disposition relative à l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard d’un enfant que comporte une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « disposition d’une ordonnance »
“custody provision”
« ordonnance de garde » S’entend notamment de l’ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « ordonnance de garde »
“custody order”
R.S., c. 4 (2nd Supp.)
Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act
Loi d’aide à l’exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales L.R., ch. 4 (2e suppl.)
13. The definitions “custody provision” and “order” in section 2 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act are replaced by the following:
13. Les définitions de « disposition de garde » et « ordonnance », à l’article 2 de la Loi d’aide à l’exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales, sont respectivement remplacées par ce qui suit :
“custody provision”
« disposition de garde »
“custody provision” means a provision of an order or agreement awarding custody of a child, and includes a provision relating to the parenting of a child included in a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act;
“order”
« ordonnance »
“order” means any order or judgment, or interim order or judgment, relating to family support, custody or access that is enforceable in a province, and includes a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act;
« disposition de garde » Disposition d’une ordonnance ou d’une entente accordant la garde d’un enfant. S’entend notamment d’une disposition relative à l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard d’un enfant que comporte une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « disposition de garde »
“custody provision”
« ordonnance » Ordonnance ou autre décision, définitive ou provisoire, en matière alimentaire, de garde ou d’accès, exécutoire dans une province. S’entend en outre d’une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « ordonnance »
“order”
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available from:
Publishing and Depository Services
Public Works and Government Services Canada Publié avec l'autorisation du président de la Chambre des communes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disponible auprès de :
Les Éditions et Services de dépôt
Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada
2nd Session, 40th Parliament,
2e session, 40e législature,
57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009
57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009
house of commons of canada
chambre des communes du canada
BILL C-422
PROJET DE LOI C-422
An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that amendments to the Divorce Act are necessary in order to
(a) clarify the purpose and underlying principles of the Act,
(b) encourage divorcing spouses to assume more responsibility for their affairs, with less reliance on adversarial processes,
(c) promote joint responsibility and joint decision-making by spouses in respect of ongoing child care, nurturing, and development,
(d) establish that the interests of the child are best served through maximal ongoing pa- rental involvement with the child, and that the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is the starting point for judicial deliberations,
(e) clarify relocation considerations by plac- ing the onus on the relocating parent to maintain continuity of relationship, and
(f) provide for consistent collection of court statistics;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur le divorce (partage égal du rôle parental) et d'autres lois en conséquence
Attendu :
que le Parlement du Canada reconnaît la nécessité de modifier la Loi sur le divorce afin :
a) d’en préciser l’objet et les principes fondamentaux,
b) d’inciter les époux en instance de divorce à assumer davantage leurs responsabilités et à recourir dans une moins grande mesure aux procédures contradictoires,
c) de promouvoir le partage entre époux de la responsabilité et de la prise de décision en ce qui concerne les soins, le soutien et le développement continus de l’enfant,
d) de déterminer que les intérêts de l’enfant sont mieux servis par l’engagement maximal continu des parents auprès de lui, et que la présomption réfutable de partage égal du rôle parental constitue le point de départ de l’examen judiciaire,
e) de simplifier les questions relatives au déménagement en imposant au père ou à la mère qui déménage le fardeau de maintenir la continuité de la relation,
f) de prévoir la collecte systématique de statistiques judiciaires,
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :
R.S., c. 3 (2nd Supp.)
DIVORCE ACT
LOI SUR LE DIVORCE L.R., ch. 3 (2e suppl.)
1. (1) The definitions “custody” and “custody order” in subsection 2(1) of the Act are repealed.
1. (1) Les définitions de « garde » et « ordonnance de garde », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, sont abrogées.
(2) The definitions “corollary relief proceeding” and “divorce proceeding” in subsection 2(1) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les définitions de « action en divorce » et « action en mesures accessoires », au paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi, sont respectivement remplacées par ce qui suit :
“corollary relief proceeding”
« action en mesures accessoires »
“corollary relief proceeding” means a proceeding in a court in which either or both former spouses seek a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order;
“divorce proceeding”
« action en divorce »
“divorce proceeding” means a proceeding in a court in which either or both spouses seek a divorce alone or together with a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order;
« action en divorce » Action exercée devant un tribunal par l’un des époux ou conjointement par eux en vue d’obtenir un divorce assorti ou non d’une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un enfant, d’une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un époux ou d’une ordonnance parentale. « action en divorce »
“divorce proceeding”
« action en mesures accessoires » Action exercée devant un tribunal par l’un des ex-époux ou conjointement par eux en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un enfant, une ordonnance alimentaire au profit d’un époux ou une ordonnance parentale. « action en mesures accessoires »
“corollary relief proceeding”
(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
(3) Le paragraphe 2(1) de la même loi est modifié par adjonction, selon l’ordre alphabétique, de ce qui suit :
“parenting”
« rôle parental »
“parenting” means the act of assuming the role of a parent to a child, including custody and all of the rights and responsibilities commonly and historically associated with the role of a parent;
“parenting order”
« ordonnance parentale »
“parenting order” means an interim order or a final order made under subsection 16(1) and includes a custody order made under this Act before the coming into force of this definition;
“relative”
« membre de la famille »
“relative” means, in relation to a child,
(a) a brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepbrother or stepsister,
(b) a grandparent,
(c) the spouse or common-law partner of either parent,
(d) an uncle or aunt,
(e) a nephew, niece, or cousin, and
(f) any other person who has the status of any of the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) according to the cultural norms of either parent;
« membre de la famille » À l’égard d’un enfant : « membre de la famille »
“relative”
a) son frère, sa soeur, son demi-frère, sa demi-soeur ou son frère ou sa soeur par mariage ou union de fait;
b) son grand-père ou sa grand-mère;
c) l’époux ou le conjoint de fait de son père ou de sa mère;
d) son oncle ou sa tante;
e) son neveu, sa nièce, son cousin ou sa cousine;
f) quiconque a le statut d’une personne visée à l'un des alinéas a) à e) selon les normes culturelles du père ou de la mère de l’enfant.
« ordonnance parentale » Ordonnance provisoire ou définitive rendue en vertu du paragraphe 16(1). S’entend en outre d’une ordonnance de garde rendue sous le régime de la présente loi avant l’entrée en vigueur de la présente définition. « ordonnance parentale »
“parenting order”
« rôle parental » Le fait d’agir à titre de père ou de mère d’un enfant, y compris la garde de celui-ci ainsi que les droits et les responsabilités communément et traditionnellement associés au rôle de père ou de mère. « rôle parental »
“parenting”
2. The Divorce Act is amended by adding the following after section 2:
2. La Loi sur le divorce est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 2, de ce qui suit :
PURPOSE
OBJET
Purpose
2.1 (1) The purpose of this Act is to provide for the expeditious and equitable dissolution of a marriage and to provide for the care of the children of the marriage.
2.1 (1) La présente loi a pour objet d’assurer la dissolution expéditive et équitable du mariage et de pourvoir aux soins des enfants à charge. Objet
Principles
(2) The following principles are to be taken into account in the interpretation and application of this Act:
(a) spouses who are undergoing a divorce should be encouraged to seek their own solutions with reduced reliance on court intervention; and
(b) every child has the right
(i) to know and be cared for by both parents,
(ii) to know his or her relatives and enjoy his or her culture, and
(iii) to spend time and communicate with both parents on a regular basis, and to maintain continuity of relationships with relatives.
(2) Pour l’interprétation et l’application de la présente loi, les principes ci-après doivent être pris en compte : Principes
a) les époux en instance de divorce devraient être incités à trouver leurs propres solutions en recourant aux tribunaux dans une moins grande mesure;
b) tout enfant a le droit :
(i) de connaître ses deux parents et de recevoir des soins de chacun d’eux,
(ii) de connaître les membres de sa famille et de jouir de sa culture,
(iii) de passer du temps avec ses deux parents et de communiquer avec eux de façon régulière et de maintenir des relations continues avec les membres de sa famille.
3. Subsection 6(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
3. Le paragraphe 6(3) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Transfer of variation proceeding
(3) Where an application for a variation order in respect of a parenting order is made in a variation proceeding to a court in a province and is opposed and the child of the marriage in respect of whom the variation order is sought is most substantially connected with another province, the court may, on application by a former spouse or on its own motion, transfer the variation proceeding to a court in that other province.
(3) Le tribunal d’une province saisi d’une demande d’ordonnance modificative concernant une ordonnance parentale peut, sur demande d’un ex-époux ou d’office, renvoyer l’affaire au tribunal d’une autre province dans le cas où la demande est contestée et où l’enfant à charge concerné par l’ordonnance modificative a ses principales attaches dans cette province. Renvoi de l’action en modification
4. Subsection 9(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
4. Le paragraphe 9(2) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Duty of legal adviser
(2) It is the duty of every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of a spouse in a divorce proceeding
(a) to discuss with the spouse the advisability of negotiating the matters that may be the subject of a support order or a parenting order;
(b) to inform the spouse of the available resources for counselling, mediation, parental coordination and family arbitration that might be able to assist the spouses in co-parenting in the best interests of the child; and
(c) to discuss with the spouse the advisability of providing for the use of the resources referred to in paragraph (b) in a parenting order.
(2) Il incombe également à l’avocat : Devoirs de l'avocat
a) de discuter avec son client de l’opportunité de négocier les points qui peuvent faire l’objet d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou d’une ordonnance parentale;
b) de renseigner son client sur les ressources disponibles en matière de consultation, de médiation, de coordination parentale et d’arbitrage familial qui sont susceptibles d’aider les époux à exercer conjointement leur rôle parental dans l’intérêt de l’enfant;
c) de discuter avec son client de l’opportunité de prévoir dans une ordonnance parentale l’utilisation des ressources mentionnées à l’alinéa b).
5. Subsection 11(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
5. Le paragraphe 11(4) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Definition of “collusion”
(4) In this section, “collusion” means an agreement or conspiracy to which an applicant for a divorce is either directly or indirectly a party for the purpose of subverting the administration of justice, and includes any agreement, understanding or arrangement to fabricate or suppress evidence or to deceive the court, but does not include an agreement to the extent that it provides for the separation of the parties or for financial support, division of property or the parenting of any child of the marriage.
(4) Au présent article, « collusion » s’entend d’une entente ou d’un complot auxquels le demandeur est partie — directement ou indirectement — en vue de déjouer l’administration de la justice, ainsi que de tout accord, entente ou autre arrangement visant à fabriquer ou à supprimer des éléments de preuve ou à tromper le tribunal, à l’exclusion de toute entente prévoyant la séparation de fait des parties, l’aide financière, le partage des biens ou l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge. Définition de « collusion »
6. The heading before section 16 of the Act is replaced by the following:
6. L’intertitre précédant l’article 16 de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
PARENTING ORDERS
ORDONNANCES PARENTALES
7. (1) Subsections 16(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
7. (1) Les paragraphes 16(1) et (2) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
Parenting order
16. (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an order respecting the parenting of any or all children of the marriage.
16. (1) Le tribunal compétent peut, sur demande des époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne, rendre une ordonnance relative au rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge ou de l’un d’eux. Ordonnance parentale
Interim order for parenting
(2) Where an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the parenting of any or all children of the marriage pending determination of the application under subsection (1). In making an interim order, the court shall take into consideration the same factors that it is required to consider when making a final order.
(2) Le tribunal peut, sur demande des époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne, rendre une ordonnance provisoire relative au rôle parental à l’égard des enfants à charge ou de l’un d’eux, dans l’attente d’une décision sur la demande visée au paragraphe (1). Lorsqu'il rend une telle ordonnance, le tribunal tient compte des mêmes facteurs qu'il considère lorsqu’il rend une ordonnance définitive. Ordonnance parentale provisoire
(2) Subsections 16(4) to (10) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les paragraphes 16(4) à (10) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
Making parenting orders
(4) Subject to subsection (5), in making a parenting order, including an interim order, the court shall:
(a) apply the presumption that allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of a child of the marriage; and
(b) apply the presumption that equal parental responsibility is in the best interests of a child of the marriage.
(4) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance parentale, y compris une ordonnance provisoire, le tribunal : Ordonnances parentales
a) applique la présomption selon laquelle le partage égal du temps parental entre les époux est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant à charge;
b) applique la présomption selon laquelle le partage égal de la responsabilité parentale est dans l’intérêt de l'enfant à charge.
Non-application of presumptions
(5) The presumptions referred to in subsection (4) are rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating parenting time or parental responsibility other than equally.
(5) Les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4) sont réfutées s’il est établi que l’intérêt de l’enfant serait considérablement mieux servi par un partage inégal du temps parental ou de la responsabilité parentale. Non-application des présomptions
Maximum practicable contact
(6) If the presumptions referred to in subsection (4) are rebutted in accordance with subsection (5), the court shall, in making an order under this section, nevertheless give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have the maximum practicable contact with each spouse that is compatible with the best interests of the child.
(6) Dans les cas où les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4) sont réfutées par application du paragraphe (5), le tribunal, lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, applique néanmoins le principe selon lequel l’enfant à charge devrait avoir avec chaque époux le plus de contact possible compatible avec son propre intérêt. Contact maximum possible
Factors to consider
(7) In making an order under this section in a case where subsection (6) applies, the court shall have regard to
(a) the capacity of the spouses to arrange for parenting time given the distance between their respective residences;
(b) the willingness of the spouses to communicate and utilize appropriate services to resolve disputes;
(c) the working schedules of the spouses and availability of caretakers; and
(d) the effect of any arrangement on the well-being of a child of the marriage.
(7) Dans les cas visés au paragraphe (6), lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, le tribunal tient compte : Facteurs
a) de l’aptitude des époux de conclure des arrangements concernant le temps parental étant donné la distance entre leurs résidences respectives;
b) de la volonté des époux à communiquer et à utiliser les services indiqués pour résoudre les différends;
c) de l’horaire de travail des époux et de la disponibilité de services de garde d’enfants;
d) de l’incidence de tout arrangement sur le bien-être de l’enfant à charge.
Assistance to spouses
(8) With the consent of the spouses, the court may appoint a counsellor, advisor, mediator or parental coordinator, with or without arbitral powers, to assist the spouses in co-parenting in the best interests of the child.
(8) Avec le consentement des époux, le tribunal peut nommer un conseiller, un médiateur ou un coordonnateur parental, avec ou sans pouvoirs d’arbitrage, pour aider les époux à exercer conjointement leur rôle parental dans l’intérêt de l’enfant. Aide aux époux
Information
(9) Unless the court orders otherwise, each spouse may make inquiries regarding the health, education and welfare of a child of the marriage and is entitled to be provided with all relevant information in response to those inquiries. The court may make a multi-directional parenting order under this section that directs a person, organization or entity to provide any such information to a spouse.
(9) Sauf ordonnance contraire du tribunal, chaque époux peut demander des renseignements relatifs à la santé, à l’éducation et au bien-être de l’enfant à charge et a le droit de recevoir tous les renseignements pertinents en réponse à cette demande. Le tribunal peut rendre une ordonnance parentale à portée élargie, conformément au présent article, dans laquelle il oblige une personne, un organisme ou une entité à fournir de tels renseignements à l’un des époux. Renseignements
Terms and conditions
(10) The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose any other terms, conditions or restrictions that are compatible with sections 16 and 16.1 as it thinks fit and just.
(10) La durée de validité de l’ordonnance rendue par le tribunal conformément au présent article peut être déterminée ou indéterminée ou dépendre d’un événement précis; l’ordonnance peut être assujettie aux modalités ou restrictions,— compatibles avec les articles 16 et 16.1 — que le tribunal estime justes et appropriées. Modalités de l’ordonnance
Order respecting change of residence
(11) Without limiting the generality of subsections (4) and (6), the court may include in an order under this section a term requiring any person who has parental responsibility in respect of a child of the marriage and who intends to change the place of residence of the child to notify, at least 30 days before the change or within such other period before the change as the court may specify, the other spouse of the change, the date on which the change will be made and the new place of residence of the child, as well as the telephone numbers, email address and other contact information for the child.
(11) Sans préjudice de la portée générale des paragraphes (4) et (6), le tribunal peut inclure dans l’ordonnance qu’il rend au titre du présent article une disposition obligeant la personne qui a une responsabilité parentale à l’égard d’un enfant à charge et qui a l’intention de changer le lieu de résidence de celui-ci d’informer au moins trente jours à l’avance, ou dans le délai antérieur au changement que lui impartit le tribunal, l’autre époux de la date du changement et du nouveau lieu de résidence de l’enfant, ainsi que des numéros de téléphone, adresse électronique et autres coordonnées de l’enfant. Ordonnance relative au changement de résidence
Prohibition against change of residence
(12) Despite subsection (11) and without limiting the generality of subsections (4) and (6), if changing a place of residence of a child of the marriage would make compliance with a parenting order impractical or unreasonable, the court shall include in an order under this section a term prohibiting a change in a place of residence of the child without the written consent of both spouses.
(12) Malgré le paragraphe (11) et sans préjudice de la portée générale des paragraphes (4) et (6), dans le cas où le changement de résidence d’un enfant à charge rendrait le respect d’une ordonnance parentale difficilement réalisable ou déraisonnable, le tribunal inclut dans l’ordonnance qu’il rend au titre du présent article une disposition interdisant le changement de résidence de l’enfant sans le consentement écrit des deux époux. Changement de résidence interdit
Duty to pay expenses
(13) Unless otherwise agreed by the spouses, the court may order a spouse who changes the place of residence of a child of the marriage to pay any additional reasonable expenses that are necessary in order to maintain, to the greatest extent practicable, the parenting arrangements that were in place before the change.
(13) Sauf entente contraire entre les époux, le tribunal peut ordonner à un époux qui change le lieu de résidence d’un enfant à charge de payer les frais additionnels raisonnables qui sont nécessaires au maintien, dans toute la mesure du possible, du partage du rôle parental antérieur au changement. Obligation de payer les frais
Matters to be considered in making parenting orders
(14) In making a parenting order under this section, the court shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, while taking into account the following:
(a) the presumptions set out in subsection (4), as applicable;
(b) the principle of maximum practicable contact, as described in subsection (6); and
(c) the considerations set out in subsections (15) and (16), with more weight being given to the considerations in subsection (15) than those in subsection (16).
(14) Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance parentale conformément au présent article, le tribunal accorde une importance primordiale à l’intérêt de l’enfant tout en tenant compte des facteurs suivants : Facteurs à considérer
a) les présomptions prévues au paragraphe (4), dans la mesure où elles sont applicables;
b) le principe de contact maximum possible, énoncé au paragraphe (6);
c) les critères énoncés au paragraphe (15) et ceux énoncés au paragraphe (16), en accordant une importance plus grande aux premiers.
Primary considerations
(15) The primary considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in aggregate, are
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship and as much contact as is practicable with each of his or her parents;
(b) the continuity of relationships with rel- atives;
(c) the willingness, and the effectiveness of the efforts, of each spouse to facilitate, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other spouse; and
(d) the protection of the child from physical and psychological harm through abuse, neglect or alienation of parental affection.
(15) Les critères fondamentaux — à évaluer dans leur ensemble — dont il faut tenir compte pour déterminer l’intérêt de l’enfant à charge sont les suivants : Critères fondamentaux
a) l’avantage pour l’enfant de maintenir des relations significatives avec son père et sa mère et d’avoir le plus de contact possible avec chacun d’eux;
b) le maintien des relations avec les membres de la famille;
c) la volonté de chaque époux de faciliter, d’encourager et d’appuyer le maintien de la relation parent-enfant avec l’autre époux et l’efficacité des efforts de chacun;
d) la protection de l’enfant contre les sévices physiques et psychologiques du fait de mauvais traitements, de négligence ou d’aliénation de l’affection parentale.
Additional considerations
(16) The additional considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in the aggregate, are
(a) any views that are voluntarily expressed by the child free from influence by either spouse or by any other person, with due weight to be given by the court to these views in accordance with the maturity and comprehension level of the child;
(b) the benefits associated with maintaining a continuity of the culture and traditions of the child;
(c) family violence committed in the pres- ence of the child; and
(d) any event or circumstance since separation that indicates that the behaviour of either spouse is not compatible with the primary considerations set out in subsection (15).
(16) Les critères additionnels — à évaluer dans leur ensemble — dont il faut tenir compte pour déterminer l’intérêt de l’enfant à charge sont les suivants : Critères additionnels
a) l’opinion exprimée volontairement par l’enfant sans influence de la part de l’un ou l’autre époux ou de toute autre personne, le tribunal devant dûment prendre en considération le degré de maturité et de compréhension de l’enfant;
b) les bienfaits associés à la préservation de la culture et des traditions de l’enfant;
c) tout geste de violence familiale commis en présence de l’enfant;
d) tout événement ou toute situation ayant eu lieu depuis la séparation dénotant que le comportement de l’un ou l’autre des époux est incompatible avec les critères fondamentaux établis au paragraphe (15).
Allocation of parenting time
(17) The court shall apply the following principles in allocating parenting time between the spouses to the extent that they are compatible with the best interests of the child:
(a) weekend, vacation, school holiday, fam- ily birthday and religious and cultural holiday time shall be allocated equitably between the spouses, with a view to the spouse with lesser aggregate time having as much of his or her parenting time as possible at times when he or she can be present with the child;
(b) extra-curricular and educational programs and activities shall be scheduled so that they have an equitable impact on the parenting time allocated to each spouse; and
(c) if relatives of the child reside in other cities, the travel requirements of a spouse shall be taken into consideration.
(17) Pour répartir le temps parental entre les époux, le tribunal applique les principes ci-après dans la mesure où ils sont compatibles avec l’intérêt de l’enfant : Répartition du temps parental
a) les fins de semaine, les vacances, les congés scolaires, les anniversaires de la famille et les congés religieux et culturels sont répartis équitablement entre les époux, l’époux qui dispose de moins de temps dans l’ensemble se voyant attribuer autant de temps parental que possible aux moments où il peut être présent auprès de l’enfant;
b) les activités et les programmes parascolaires et éducatifs sont planifiés de manière à avoir un effet équitable sur le temps parental attribué à chaque époux;
c) dans le cas où des membres de la famille de l’enfant résident dans d’autres villes, les exigences relatives aux déplacements d’un époux sont prises en compte.
Reasons for decision
(18) If the court makes an order under this section that does not provide for equal parenting time or equal parenting responsibility, the court shall, in the reasons for its decision, explain in detail why such an order was made notwithstanding the principles for parenting orders set out in this section.
(18) Lorsque l’ordonnance qu’il rend conformément au présent article ne prévoit pas, malgré les principes applicables aux ordonnances parentales énoncés au présent article, le partage égal du temps parental ou de la responsabilité parentale, le tribunal explique de façon détaillée les motifs de sa décision. Motifs
Past conduct
(19) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of a spouse unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that spouse to act as a parent of a child of the marriage.
(19) Lorsqu'il rend une ordonnance conformément au présent article, le tribunal ne tient pas compte de la conduite antérieure d’un époux, sauf si celle-ci est liée à l’aptitude de l’époux à agir à titre de père ou de mère de l’enfant à charge. Conduite antérieure
8. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 16:
8. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l'article 16, de ce qui suit :
Content of parenting order
16.1 Every order made under section 16 shall provide for
(a) the persons with whom a child of the marriage is to live;
(b) the allocation of parenting time between the spouses in accordance with the best interests of the child, as determined under that section;
(c) the allocation of parental responsibility for the child;
(d) the form of consultations that the spouses are to engage in before making decisions that will have a significant impact on the circumstances of the child;
(e) the form of communications that the child is to have with others and their modalities, such as letter mail, telephone or electronic means;
(f) the possession of the child’s records, and, if applicable, any restrictions that relate to sharing those records;
(g) the dispute resolution procedures that are to be followed when needed, including, if appropriate, the names of individuals who are to be consulted;
(h) rules applicable to change of residence, as set out in section 16;
(i) child support;
(j) the identification of any parts of the order that have been issued on consent; and
(k) the name of the judge.
16.1 Toute ordonnance rendue en vertu de l’article 16 prévoit : Contenu de l’ordonnance parentale
a) le nom des personnes avec lesquelles doit vivre l’enfant à charge;
b) le partage du temps parental entre les époux selon l’intérêt de l’enfant tel qu’il a été déterminé conformément à cet article;
c) le partage de la responsabilité parentale à l’égard de l’enfant;
d) le genre de consultations auxquelles doivent participer les époux avant de prendre des décisions qui auront une incidence importante sur la situation de l’enfant;
e) les moyens de communication — et leurs conditions d’utilisation — auxquels l’enfant aura accès, tels le courrier, le téléphone ou des moyens électroniques;
f) la personne ayant la possession des documents relatifs à l’enfant et, le cas échéant, les restrictions relatives à leur communication;
g) la procédure de résolution des différends à suivre en cas de besoin, y compris, s’il y a lieu, le nom des personnes à consulter;
h) les règles applicables au changement de résidence, selon ce que prévoit l’article 16;
i) les aliments de l’enfant;
j) la mention de tout passage de l’ordonnance rendu sur consentement;
k) le nom du juge.
Definitions
16.2 (1) The following definitions apply in sections 16 and 16.1.
“parental responsibility”
« responsabilité parentale »
“parental responsibility” means responsibility for
(a) making long-term decisions with respect to the health, education, welfare, development, religion, culture, name and changes to the living arrangements of a child;
(b) carrying out the everyday tasks that are associated with the care and activities of a child; and
(c) making emergency decisions in respect of a child.
“equal parenting responsibility”
« partage égal de la responsabilité parentale »
“equal parenting responsibility” includes joint responsibility for long-term decision-making and responsibility for daily care during allocated parenting time, but does not include major decisions made by one parent during an emergency situation.
“parenting time”
« temps parental »
“parenting time” means, with respect to a particular spouse and child, the days and times that the spouse is given primary care and responsibility for the daily needs of the child.
16.2 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent aux articles 16 et 16.1. Définitions
« partage égal de la responsabilité parentale » S’entend notamment de la responsabilité conjointe pour la prise de décisions à long terme et de la responsabilité des soins quotidiens pendant le temps parental attribué. Sont exclues de la présente définition les décisions importantes prises par le père ou la mère en cas d’urgence. « partage égal de la responsabilité parentale »
“equal parenting responsibility”
« responsabilité parentale » S’entend de la responsabilité : « responsabilité parentale »
“parental responsibility”
a) de prendre des décisions à long terme relatives à la santé, à l’éducation, au bien-être, au développement, à la religion, à la culture, au nom et aux changements du mode de vie d’un enfant;
b) d’accomplir les tâches quotidiennes associées aux soins et aux activités d’un enfant;
c) de prendre des décisions en cas d’urgence à l’égard d’un enfant.
« temps parental » S’entend, relativement à chaque époux et à un enfant, des jours et des moments pendant lesquels l’époux se voit confier le principal soin de l’enfant et la responsabilité de veiller à ses besoins quotidiens. « temps parental »
“parenting time”
9. (1) Paragraph 17(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
9. (1) L’alinéa 17(1)b) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(b) a parenting order or any provision thereof on application by either or both former spouses or by any other person.
b) une ordonnance parentale ou telle de ses dispositions, sur demande des ex-époux ou de l’un d’eux ou de toute autre personne.
(2) Subsection 17(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Le paragraphe 17(5) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Factors for parenting order
(5) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a parenting order, the court shall satisfy itself that there has been a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of the child of the marriage occurring since the making of the parenting order or the last variation order made in respect of that order, as the case may be. The principles relating to parenting orders set out in section 16 apply to variation orders.
(5) Avant de rendre une ordonnance modificative de l’ordonnance parentale, le tribunal doit s’assurer qu’il est survenu un changement dans les ressources, les besoins ou, d’une façon générale, dans la situation de l’enfant à charge depuis le prononcé de l’ordonnance parentale ou de la dernière ordonnance modificative de celle-ci, le cas échéant. Les principes relatifs aux ordonnances parentales établis à l’article 16 s’appliquent aux ordonnances modificatives. Facteurs considérés pour l’ordonnance parentale
(3) Subsection 17(9) of the Act is repealed.
(3) Le paragraphe 17(9) de la même loi est abrogé.
(4) Subsection 17(11) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) Le paragraphe 17(11) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
Copy of order
(11) Where a court makes a variation order in respect of a support order or a parenting order made by another court, it shall send a copy of the variation order, certified by a judge or officer of the court, to that other court.
(11) Le tribunal qui rend une ordonnance modificative d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou parentale rendue par un autre tribunal envoie à celui-ci une copie, certifiée conforme par un de ses juges ou fonctionnaires, de l’ordonnance modificative. Copie de l’ordonnance
10. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 17.1:
10. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 17.1, de ce qui suit :
Variation of existing parenting order
17.2 (1) Where an application is made for a variation order in respect of a parenting order that was made before the coming into force of this section, the court shall determine the application in accordance with the provisions of this Act as they exist at the time the application is before the court.
17.2 (1) Lorsqu’une demande est présentée devant le tribunal en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance modificative d’une ordonnance parentale rendue avant l’entrée en vigueur du présent article, le tribunal statue sur la demande conformément aux dispositions de la présente loi dans leur version à la date d’audition de la demande. Modification d’une ordonnance parentale
Change of circumstances
(2) The coming into force of subsection 17(5), as enacted by subsection 9(2) of this Act, constitutes a change of circumstances within the meaning of subsection 17(5).
(2) L’entrée en vigueur du paragraphe 17(5), dans sa version édictée par le paragraphe 9(2) de la présente loi, constitue un changement de situation au sens du paragraphe 17(5). Changement de situation
Compilation of statistics on parenting orders
17.3 (1) The Minister of Justice may make any arrangements the Minister considers expedient between the provinces, as administrators of the Superior Courts, and any department of the Government of Canada, for the collection, transmission and exchange of any information or statistics concerning parenting orders.
17.3 (1) Le ministre de la Justice peut prendre les dispositions qu’il juge indiquées en vue de la collecte, de la transmission et de l’échange d’informations ou de statistiques relatives aux ordonnances parentales entre les provinces — à titre d’administratrices des cours supérieures — et tout ministère fédéral. Statistiques sur les ordonnances parentales
Regulations concerning the collection of statistics
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations that provide for the collection, compilation and publication of statistics regarding parenting orders. These statistics may include the allocation of parenting time between spouses, the extent of decision-making by each spouse, and the number and ages of the children to which these statistics relate.
(2) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prévoir la collecte, la compilation et la publication de statistiques concernant les ordonnances parentales. Ces statistiques peuvent porter notamment sur la répartition du temps parental entre les époux, l’étendue de la prise de décisions par chaque époux ainsi que le nombre et l’âge des enfants qu’elles visent. Règlements portant sur la collecte de statistiques
11. Paragraph 34(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
11. L’alinéa 34(1)a) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(a) the order were a support order or parenting order, as the case may be; and
a) s’il s’agissait d’une ordonnance alimentaire ou parentale, selon le cas;
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
MODIFICATIONS CORRÉLATIVES
R.S., c. C-46
Criminal Code
Code criminel L.R., ch. C-46
12. Section 282 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
12. L’article 282 du Code criminel est modifié par adjonction, après le paragraphe (2), de ce qui suit :
Definitions
(3) The following definitions apply in this section and section 283.
“custody order”
« ordonnance de garde »
“custody order” includes a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act.
“custody provision”
« disposition d'une ordonnance »
“custody provision” includes a provision relating to the parenting of a child included in a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act.
(3) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et à l’article 283. Définitions
« disposition d’une ordonnance » S’entend notamment d’une disposition relative à l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard d’un enfant que comporte une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « disposition d’une ordonnance »
“custody provision”
« ordonnance de garde » S’entend notamment de l’ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « ordonnance de garde »
“custody order”
R.S., c. 4 (2nd Supp.)
Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act
Loi d’aide à l’exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales L.R., ch. 4 (2e suppl.)
13. The definitions “custody provision” and “order” in section 2 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act are replaced by the following:
13. Les définitions de « disposition de garde » et « ordonnance », à l’article 2 de la Loi d’aide à l’exécution des ordonnances et des ententes familiales, sont respectivement remplacées par ce qui suit :
“custody provision”
« disposition de garde »
“custody provision” means a provision of an order or agreement awarding custody of a child, and includes a provision relating to the parenting of a child included in a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act;
“order”
« ordonnance »
“order” means any order or judgment, or interim order or judgment, relating to family support, custody or access that is enforceable in a province, and includes a parenting order made under section 16 of the Divorce Act;
« disposition de garde » Disposition d’une ordonnance ou d’une entente accordant la garde d’un enfant. S’entend notamment d’une disposition relative à l’exercice du rôle parental à l’égard d’un enfant que comporte une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « disposition de garde »
“custody provision”
« ordonnance » Ordonnance ou autre décision, définitive ou provisoire, en matière alimentaire, de garde ou d’accès, exécutoire dans une province. S’entend en outre d’une ordonnance parentale rendue en vertu de l’article 16 de la Loi sur le divorce. « ordonnance »
“order”
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available from:
Publishing and Depository Services
Public Works and Government Services Canada Publié avec l'autorisation du président de la Chambre des communes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disponible auprès de :
Les Éditions et Services de dépôt
Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Introduction of Private Members' Bills - Equal Parenting June 12, 2009
Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) has put forth an Introduction of Private Members' Bills to amend the Divorce Act to include equal parenting. PC Member of Parliment, Mr. Vellacott, has worked hard to place this bill on the political agenda. Let us continue to support him and the bill. If this bill passes it will be a victory for children and parents who love them. Send your support to Mr. Vellacott by contacting him and call your own MP and let him/her know that you have the voting power. (Thanks to Mike Murphy for the post)
Notice Paper
No. 75
Monday, June 15, 2009
11:00 a.m.
Introduction of Government Bills
June 12, 2009 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Divorce Act (equal parenting) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sole custody harms kids: Canadian Report
The effects of divorce on kids are now so well documented, significantly more couples separating today are opting for “equal shared parenting” – voluntary custody arrangements in which the children live with each parent roughly half the time, says Kruk. While a landmark federal study, For the Sake of the Children, recommended that approach back in 1998 and it has since been adopted by other countries, including Australia, it’s still rarely used by Canadian judges and needs to be made law, except where there are extenuating circumstances, such as domestic violence or mental health issues that make one parent unfit, says Kruk.
Sole custody harms kids: Report
Children “robbed of love” in divorce cases
by Susan Pigg
Family court judges are misguidedly harming children by granting sole custody to one parent – usually the mother – in bitter divorce battles, says a comprehensive new report.Too many children are being “robbed of the love of one parent” by a legal system that is out of touch with the needs of children and treats them like property to be won or lost, says Edward Kruk, an expert on child custody issues.
“The system is set up to polarize parents, to make them enemies, to set up fights over custody and exacerbate conflict rather than reduce it,” says Kruk, an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, whose three-year study is now in the hands of Canada’s justice minister.
He calls what’s happening in Canada’s divorce courts “a national shame” that leaves families bankrupt from legal fees and pushing parents, especially fathers, to suicide.
Especially devastating are the long-term effects of court orders that essentially cut one parent out of children’s lives – usually the dad – in a misguided effort to foster peace between warring parents, the report says.
Citing a host of North American studies, Kruk’s report points to the long-term dangers: Some 85 per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of high school dropouts grew up without fathers, as did 90 per cent of runaway children. Fatherless youth are also more prone to depression, suicide, delinquency, promiscuity, drug abuse, behavioural problems and teen pregnancy, warns the 84-page report, a compilation of dozens of studies around divorce and custody, including some of his own research over the past 20 years.
“Parent-child bonds are formed through daily routines – preparing breakfast, taking the child to school, having dinner, getting ready for bed. Without that, it’s very difficult for parents to have any real connection with their kids,” Kruk said in a telephone interview from B.C. “It’s so destructive for children to have a loving parent removed from their lives.”
The effects of divorce on kids are now so well documented, significantly more couples separating today are opting for “equal shared parenting” – voluntary custody arrangements in which the children live with each parent roughly half the time, says Kruk. While a landmark federal study, For the Sake of the Children, recommended that approach back in 1998 and it has since been adopted by other countries, including Australia, it’s still rarely used by Canadian judges and needs to be made law, except where there are extenuating circumstances, such as domestic violence or mental health issues that make one parent unfit, says Kruk.
Instead, most judges still rely on a “winner takes all” approach in custody battles. In some three-quarters of cases, judges grant sole custody to mothers, believing that it’s impossible for warring parents to make shared custody work, Kruk’s report finds. That’s despite a growing body of research that shows animosity and even physical violence can increase “significantly0″ when one parent has sole control, says the report, Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard.
Even court-ordered “joint custody” is really a misnomer, Kruk’s report shows. In fact, the non-custodial parent – usually the father – ends up with just a few days a month (typically every second weekend and every Wednesday) with the children. While research shows even that minimal sharing of time actually forces warring parents to lay down their arms and work together on “parenting plans” that work best for each of them and their kids, says Kruk, it makes it far more difficult for the non-custodial parent to develop a strong bond with their kids.
Research has shown that women and men work comparable amounts of time outside the home and now devote almost the exact amount of time – 11.1 hours a week and 10.5 hours a week respectively – to child care, with men playing a key role in their children’s upbringing, says Kruk. Yet divorce lawyers openly tell fathers not to waste their time and money seeking equal custody, unless they can prove the mother is unfit.
All of which gives one parent a huge psychological advantage over the other, and incentive to fight to the death – in some cases actually alienating the kids from the other spouse – to win what comes to be seen as their “property,” says Kruk.
But there are signs even mothers are at risk, Kruk warns. He’s now studying 14 Vancouver-area women who have lost custody of their kids to their ex-husbands, in some cases because fathers argued that demanding careers kept the women away from home too much. Surprisingly, those women are now teaming up with fathers’ right groups to push for legislation making equal, shared parenting the norm.
“No court order can make people get along,” says Justice Harvey Brownstone who wrote the book Tug of War on divorce in Canada. He has seen cases over the past 14 years in which courts imposed shared parenting, only to have one parent refuse to take the child to his hockey game or administer medication as a way to make their viewpoint known to the ex-spouse.
“Parents who are hell-bent on undermining each other’s relationship with the child will inevitably find a way to create conflict, which most often results in further litigation, which in turn prolongs the child’s exposure to a parental tug of war.”
Source: http://coparenting101.org/2009/04/15/sole-custody-harms-kids-canadian-report/
Sole custody harms kids: Report
Children “robbed of love” in divorce cases
by Susan Pigg
Family court judges are misguidedly harming children by granting sole custody to one parent – usually the mother – in bitter divorce battles, says a comprehensive new report.Too many children are being “robbed of the love of one parent” by a legal system that is out of touch with the needs of children and treats them like property to be won or lost, says Edward Kruk, an expert on child custody issues.
“The system is set up to polarize parents, to make them enemies, to set up fights over custody and exacerbate conflict rather than reduce it,” says Kruk, an associate professor of social work at the University of British Columbia, whose three-year study is now in the hands of Canada’s justice minister.
He calls what’s happening in Canada’s divorce courts “a national shame” that leaves families bankrupt from legal fees and pushing parents, especially fathers, to suicide.
Especially devastating are the long-term effects of court orders that essentially cut one parent out of children’s lives – usually the dad – in a misguided effort to foster peace between warring parents, the report says.
Citing a host of North American studies, Kruk’s report points to the long-term dangers: Some 85 per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of high school dropouts grew up without fathers, as did 90 per cent of runaway children. Fatherless youth are also more prone to depression, suicide, delinquency, promiscuity, drug abuse, behavioural problems and teen pregnancy, warns the 84-page report, a compilation of dozens of studies around divorce and custody, including some of his own research over the past 20 years.
“Parent-child bonds are formed through daily routines – preparing breakfast, taking the child to school, having dinner, getting ready for bed. Without that, it’s very difficult for parents to have any real connection with their kids,” Kruk said in a telephone interview from B.C. “It’s so destructive for children to have a loving parent removed from their lives.”
The effects of divorce on kids are now so well documented, significantly more couples separating today are opting for “equal shared parenting” – voluntary custody arrangements in which the children live with each parent roughly half the time, says Kruk. While a landmark federal study, For the Sake of the Children, recommended that approach back in 1998 and it has since been adopted by other countries, including Australia, it’s still rarely used by Canadian judges and needs to be made law, except where there are extenuating circumstances, such as domestic violence or mental health issues that make one parent unfit, says Kruk.
Instead, most judges still rely on a “winner takes all” approach in custody battles. In some three-quarters of cases, judges grant sole custody to mothers, believing that it’s impossible for warring parents to make shared custody work, Kruk’s report finds. That’s despite a growing body of research that shows animosity and even physical violence can increase “significantly0″ when one parent has sole control, says the report, Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard.
Even court-ordered “joint custody” is really a misnomer, Kruk’s report shows. In fact, the non-custodial parent – usually the father – ends up with just a few days a month (typically every second weekend and every Wednesday) with the children. While research shows even that minimal sharing of time actually forces warring parents to lay down their arms and work together on “parenting plans” that work best for each of them and their kids, says Kruk, it makes it far more difficult for the non-custodial parent to develop a strong bond with their kids.
Research has shown that women and men work comparable amounts of time outside the home and now devote almost the exact amount of time – 11.1 hours a week and 10.5 hours a week respectively – to child care, with men playing a key role in their children’s upbringing, says Kruk. Yet divorce lawyers openly tell fathers not to waste their time and money seeking equal custody, unless they can prove the mother is unfit.
All of which gives one parent a huge psychological advantage over the other, and incentive to fight to the death – in some cases actually alienating the kids from the other spouse – to win what comes to be seen as their “property,” says Kruk.
But there are signs even mothers are at risk, Kruk warns. He’s now studying 14 Vancouver-area women who have lost custody of their kids to their ex-husbands, in some cases because fathers argued that demanding careers kept the women away from home too much. Surprisingly, those women are now teaming up with fathers’ right groups to push for legislation making equal, shared parenting the norm.
“No court order can make people get along,” says Justice Harvey Brownstone who wrote the book Tug of War on divorce in Canada. He has seen cases over the past 14 years in which courts imposed shared parenting, only to have one parent refuse to take the child to his hockey game or administer medication as a way to make their viewpoint known to the ex-spouse.
“Parents who are hell-bent on undermining each other’s relationship with the child will inevitably find a way to create conflict, which most often results in further litigation, which in turn prolongs the child’s exposure to a parental tug of war.”
Source: http://coparenting101.org/2009/04/15/sole-custody-harms-kids-canadian-report/
Fathers hold equal, crucial role in parenting
by Dr. Judith Kleinfeld
Published: May 7th, 2009 11:26 PM
Last Modified: May 7th, 2009 11:27 PM
At McDonald's I overheard my 12-year-old son tell a friend about the essence of the ways his dad differed from his mom. "If I ordered a hamburger and spilled my Coke on it, my Mom would order me a new lunch," he said. "My Dad would make me eat the mess."
My son is asking a fascinating question: What do fathers do for children that mothers can't?
Children, especially boys, who grow up with detached fathers are apt to become delinquents, research has shown. They are also less apt to do well in school or have happy marriages. But why is this?
"Fathers bring unique and irreplaceable qualities that mothers do not ordinarily bring to childrearing," concludes David Popenoe, summarizing the latest research on fathering.
Fathers find it easier to enforce fair and consistent rules, he argues, because they are not picking up on everybody's feelings. Thus, fathers find it easier to set standards and let their children experience the consequences of failing to meet them.
Mothers are better at tuning into the child's mood and situation. We call mothers "softies" but that's not the right way to look at it. Mothers are not softer but more sensitive.
I can taste in my own mouth that disgusting Coke-drenched hamburger.
My husband and I are classic examples of Popenoe's points about why both mothers and fathers have crucial but different roles in child-rearing. Take the time our teenage son totaled our Jeep.
I felt sympathy. The kid was a new driver, and he was trying to get home.
Coming down an icy road on a steep cliff, he lost control of the car, rolling it again and again. When I saw the totaled car at the junkyard, every single pane of glass or sheet of metal was smashed. I was grateful my son was not smashed.
I wanted to give him a new car. How else was he going to learn to drive safely?
His dad said no. Why should he get a new car because he had wrecked our Jeep? He should have known better than to drive in such icy conditions. He should have spent the night at his friend's. He could take the bus the rest of the year, and that's just what he had to do.
Dads play more rough and tumble games with their children and they are more exciting to play with. In one study, more than two-thirds of small children, when given a choice between their two parents, preferred to play with their fathers.
A father's active, aggressive play, surprisingly, ends up teaching children how to control their emotions and cool down. If the children get out of control, if anyone starts to bite or kick, fathers usually end the game.
When mothers pick up their babies, they usually snuggle them close to their chests. The children get a lot of warmth and security. The problem is that they don't get much of a view.
Fathers are more apt to pick up their babies, hold them at arm's length, and bounce them around. Fathers more often carry their babies on their shoulders, where they can see the world.
These different parenting styles persist as children get older. Mommy play tends to take place more at the child's level of interest. When my daughter wanted a doll house, for example, I scanned the newspaper ads to find her a perfect dollhouse. I helped her decorate it, even though I had absolutely no interest in doll houses.
To get her father's attention, my daughter had to tap into his interests. Helping her dad develop photographs in his darkroom is one of her favorite memories. She learned a lot more about chemistry in the darkroom than from her dollhouse.
Now that our children are adults, it's my husband who get the important e-mails from the children about equalizers and amplifiers, computers and investments, and why the car is making peculiar noises.
Now I get jealous of how close our adult children are to their father, even if he did make them eat that disgusting hamburger drenched in spilled Coke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Kleinfeld is a psychology professor and co-director of northern studies at University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Source: http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/787847.html
Published: May 7th, 2009 11:26 PM
Last Modified: May 7th, 2009 11:27 PM
At McDonald's I overheard my 12-year-old son tell a friend about the essence of the ways his dad differed from his mom. "If I ordered a hamburger and spilled my Coke on it, my Mom would order me a new lunch," he said. "My Dad would make me eat the mess."
My son is asking a fascinating question: What do fathers do for children that mothers can't?
Children, especially boys, who grow up with detached fathers are apt to become delinquents, research has shown. They are also less apt to do well in school or have happy marriages. But why is this?
"Fathers bring unique and irreplaceable qualities that mothers do not ordinarily bring to childrearing," concludes David Popenoe, summarizing the latest research on fathering.
Fathers find it easier to enforce fair and consistent rules, he argues, because they are not picking up on everybody's feelings. Thus, fathers find it easier to set standards and let their children experience the consequences of failing to meet them.
Mothers are better at tuning into the child's mood and situation. We call mothers "softies" but that's not the right way to look at it. Mothers are not softer but more sensitive.
I can taste in my own mouth that disgusting Coke-drenched hamburger.
My husband and I are classic examples of Popenoe's points about why both mothers and fathers have crucial but different roles in child-rearing. Take the time our teenage son totaled our Jeep.
I felt sympathy. The kid was a new driver, and he was trying to get home.
Coming down an icy road on a steep cliff, he lost control of the car, rolling it again and again. When I saw the totaled car at the junkyard, every single pane of glass or sheet of metal was smashed. I was grateful my son was not smashed.
I wanted to give him a new car. How else was he going to learn to drive safely?
His dad said no. Why should he get a new car because he had wrecked our Jeep? He should have known better than to drive in such icy conditions. He should have spent the night at his friend's. He could take the bus the rest of the year, and that's just what he had to do.
Dads play more rough and tumble games with their children and they are more exciting to play with. In one study, more than two-thirds of small children, when given a choice between their two parents, preferred to play with their fathers.
A father's active, aggressive play, surprisingly, ends up teaching children how to control their emotions and cool down. If the children get out of control, if anyone starts to bite or kick, fathers usually end the game.
When mothers pick up their babies, they usually snuggle them close to their chests. The children get a lot of warmth and security. The problem is that they don't get much of a view.
Fathers are more apt to pick up their babies, hold them at arm's length, and bounce them around. Fathers more often carry their babies on their shoulders, where they can see the world.
These different parenting styles persist as children get older. Mommy play tends to take place more at the child's level of interest. When my daughter wanted a doll house, for example, I scanned the newspaper ads to find her a perfect dollhouse. I helped her decorate it, even though I had absolutely no interest in doll houses.
To get her father's attention, my daughter had to tap into his interests. Helping her dad develop photographs in his darkroom is one of her favorite memories. She learned a lot more about chemistry in the darkroom than from her dollhouse.
Now that our children are adults, it's my husband who get the important e-mails from the children about equalizers and amplifiers, computers and investments, and why the car is making peculiar noises.
Now I get jealous of how close our adult children are to their father, even if he did make them eat that disgusting hamburger drenched in spilled Coke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Kleinfeld is a psychology professor and co-director of northern studies at University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Source: http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/787847.html
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Benefits of post-divorce shared parenting and the situation in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany
It's regrettable that Canada and its provinces are way behind progressive thinking of other countries such as Denmark, Australia, Italy, when it comes to family law. Canada and other countries are still living in the "Middle Ages" and its existing laws do considerable harm to children and parents. We can learn a great deal from other countries that have adopted equal or shared parenting and reduce harm toward children and their parents.
Child and educational psychologist, Dr. Peter Tromp, presents brief summaries by country on the present state of Shared Parenting Legislation in the countries of the European Union.
1. Italy now has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody since a law change that came into effect on 16th March 2006.
2. France has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody (Residence Alternee) that came into effect in 2002. An estimated 15% of French children of divorce are now growing up in shared parenting and alternating residence arrangements.
3. Belgium on the initiative of its Socialist Party now has implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation (effective bi-location of the children) after parental separation in both its House of Commons and Senate which came into effect when it was formally published by the Belgian Federal Government on the 4th of September 2006. The new Belgian federal law on bi-location will be discussed at more length in my presentation below.
4. In the Netherlands joint legal custody was implemented in family law by the Dutch Parliament in 1996 making joint legal custody the standard for post-divorce parental authority. And with the new Dutch Law on Continued Parenting after Separation (no. 30145), that went into effect on 1 January 2009, this was followed by the introduction in Dutch family law of the basic principle of the equality of both parents and the presumption of equal parenting (both before and after divorce or separation, and regardless of whether the parents were previously married or not). The new Dutch family law also introduces a strong incentive for separating parents to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan during the separation and divorce proceedings.
The new Dutch law reform will be discussed at more length in my presentation below. Considering however the poor Dutch tradition on effective family law reform, the mainly decorative value of Dutch family court orders for fathers and the Dutch family court’s tradition of legislating from the bench, it still remains to be seen what this new Dutch law will bring in day-to-day family court practises for divorcing and separating parents and their children.
5. Norway still has sole physical custody but its Minister of Justice has already announced (in 2007) a complete family law review based on the principles of presumptive joint physical custody. Up until now, however, this has not yet materialized.
6. Ireland has, since the advent of Parental Equality (the Irish lobby group associated with Liam O’Gogain) circa. 1993, been considering the possibility of a change to laws of joint physical custody – which gives some gauge of the lack of seriousness with which such laws are being considered.
7. In Germany, a professional court intervention model called the Cochem model, based on principles of shared parenting, is gathering strength. This German Cochem court practice model will be discussed at more length in my presentation below. In this model parents are only allowed access to the family court for parental separation and divorce after they have themselves also filed a shared post-divorce parenting plan agreed by and between both of them. The German federal minister of Justice has previously (February 2006) announced future family law reform in which “elements of the Cochem model of multi-disciplinary court orchestrated intervention” are to be integrated into the German family law. Which elements, however, are as of yet unknown. This family law reform at the federal level has, therefore, not yet materialized.
8. Malta also has some form of shared parenting presumption according to Maltese family rights organizations. As of yet, however, it is unclear what is the exact nature of their shared parenting presumption.
9. Spain introduced a new shared parenting law in mid-2005 which is regarded as wholly inadequate by Spanish family rights lobbyists. Government officials and professionals on their own initiative are attempting to introduce policies reintegrating alienated children with their alienated parents and there is a vigorous movement for change.
10. The UK under the present Labour government has, as of yet, no effective shared parenting laws in existence. In his simultaneous presentation at the Drama Conference based on a study of the British Law Commission’s research papers Robert Whiston found that court-ordered shared parenting was commonly practiced in the south part of England in the second half of the last century until it was eliminated by the Children Act 1989 (Whiston, 2009a). At present, the oppositional Conservative Party – which is expected to win the next 2009 elections – has adopted Equal Parenting Family Law Reform as part of its election program. Also some judicially-motivated efforts to introduce norms of shared parenting do exist, in spite of the family-hostile parameters of the present law and fiscal framework.
11. Luxembourg is also said to have introduced post-divorce joint physical custody legislation.
Other jurisdictions
- Australia passed a Shared Parenting Bill in the Senate in 2006 of the window dressing sort. Australia in fact is a good example of the sort of jurisdiction that repeatedly passing pretend laws that are having no real effects on keeping both parents involved in children’s lives after parental separation. And each time it is claimed that the present law proposal will be better than the last, while children of separation continue to grow up in a family-hostile environment. The same pattern can be observed in EU-countries like the UK, the Netherlands and Spain.
- In the USA several states have implemented shared parenting legislation.
6. Recent developments in family law and family courts in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
Family law reform in Belgium
Belgium already had a presumption of joint legal custody in its family law since the nineties of the last century.
Since September 2006 the Belgian federal law on “bi-location” or “alternating residence” also came into effect after having passed both houses in the Belgian federal parliament. This new law additionally introduced a presumption of joint physical custody, care and residency as the norm or preferred post-divorce parenting arrangement to be ordered by the Belgian family courts. Furthermore immediate unilateral court-access for either of the divorced or separated parents in requesting for additional reinforcement orders if needed was introduced.
Contrary to common belief the Belgian family law reform of September 2006 however did not introduce a 50/50 joint physical care and residency arrangement as the fixed end-result for all divorcing or separating Belgian parents. Instead it introduced a presumption of dual location or shared residency which by law should be taken into serious consideration and thorough investigation with priority in each individual case by the Belgian family courts and judges on the request of either one of the divorcing parents separately.
In the situation where both separating parents consensually forward shared residency, care and access proposals between the two of them in the divorce and separation proceedings, the law puts the Belgian family courts and judges under the obligation to accept those mutually consented proposals as leading in the court-orders to be subsequently imposed in the divorce and separation proceedings.
In effect the wishes with regard to the post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements of either parent parties involved were thus again acknowledged and reinstated at the core of Belgian family law and family court proceedings regarding physical custody, residency and care. By law Belgian family court judges were endowed with the obligation to explicitly specify in their court-orders their decisions and provisions with regard to the imposed post-divorce residence and care arrangements in writing if they were to deviate from the presumptive and preferred bi-location or shared parenting arrangement in their court-orders.
These new Belgian law provisions have put shared parenting at the forefront of the family courts decision-making regarding the care, access and residency of the children involved, while the need and obligation imposed by law on the Belgian family courts and judges to extensively specify in writing in their imposed court-orders as to why a shared parenting or bi-location order was not imposed, opens the possibility for appeal of the courts decisions and motivations.
A further additional but underestimated new element of the Belgian family law reform is the introduction of immediate or priority access to the courts and judges on the request of either one of the parties one-sidedly. This can be activated unilaterally and individually – without the need of being represented by a lawyer at the court-session requested for – for additional reinforcement orders of the court when the court-ordered parenting arrangements were not sufficiently complied with by the other parent and when there were complaints about the other parent with regard to abiding by the specific parenting arrangements laid down by the judge in the original case residency, care and access order(s) given.
Although the law, as a federal national framework, has been in effect for only 2,5 years – and so it is too early to evaluate its effects thoroughly – first impressions are that it has contributed strongly to the Kantian appeasement between divorcing and separating parents in Belgium. This contributes to both the leading civil and family law principle of appeasement between conflicting parties as well as to the best interest of the children involved who now flourish far better under the care of the appeased but separated parents.
Family law reform in the Netherlands
In 1996 joint legal custody (in Dutch: gezamenlijk gezag) was implemented by law by the Dutch Parliament making joint legal custody the standard for post-divorce parenting in the Netherlands to oblige with EVRM Article 8 on the Right to Family Life.
However, shortly after the introduction of the law, the family courts in conjunction with the Dutch High Court neutralised the Dutch Parliament’s specific intent for a law by to keep both parents involved in children’s lives.
Perversely, the judiciary undermined Parliament’s sovereignty by stating that joint legal custody could be awarded but that it did not automatically entitle fathers to contact and access arrangements.
Over the past few years the Dutch Parliament has taken several new initiatives to introduce joint physical custody and equal parenting as the legal presumption for post-divorce parenting arrangements.
The first attempt was the legal initiative on administrative divorce (divorce without the use of a court and representing lawyers) and continued parenting, No. 29676 by parliament in 2004 (Luchtenveld, 2004), better known as the Luchtenveld-proposal [5]. It passed the Dutch House of Commons in the winter of 2005 only to be left stranded in the Dutch Senate in the summer of 2006. This however was mainly caused by the “Administrative Divorce” part of the law being contradictory to lawyers’ interests, which hit on heavy resistance with the Dutch judiciary[6].
Another new attempt for family law reform, better known as the “Donner-proposal”, was then made on the initiative of the Ministry of Justice with the Law on Continued Parenting after Separation (No. 30145). This law while it passed in the Dutch House of Commons in June 2006, on the initiative of the Dutch Socialist Party was unexpectedly altered by a constitutional majority amendment introducing equal parenting as the presumption for post-divorce parenting. On November 25th 2008 this law passed the Dutch Senate. It went into effect two days ago on January 1st 2009.
This new law has the following main positive features with regard to shared parenting arrangements and the reinforcement of parenting orders by the Dutch family courts:
• It introduces and aims to guarantee in Dutch family law the basic principle of equality for both parents and the presumption of equal parenting both before and after divorce or separation, and regardless of whether the parents were previously married or not.
• It introduces a strong incentive for parents to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan during the separation and divorce proceedings.
• Adding new but complicated reinforcement possibilities to the toolbox of options available to judges to ensure compliance with court-ordered parenting arrangements.
However, the law also has some distinctly negative features for shared parenting as it once again re-opens the possibilities for the family courts to deviate from the Parliamentary default presumption of joint legal custody. This could give rise to new ways and new reasons for a court to exclude a father from parenting his children. For a more detailed account of the features in the new Dutch family law on parenting after divorce however I further refer to the Appendix A with this presentation.
Reforms in Germany – The Cochem court-practice model
Several years ago a family court judge Jurgen Rudolph – based in the German regional family court of Cochem was confronted time and again with two equally capable parents. Both were forced to fight each other – almost to the death – in adversarial court proceedings. His radical solution will be detailed later in this paper.
Also in Germany a post-divorce presumption of joint legal custody was already in effect in family law since 1998, when several years ago the family court judge Jurgen Rudolph (Rudolph, 2007) – residing at the German regional family court of the city and district of Cochem – in his courtroom bench was confronted with capable parents fighting each other with the help of their lawyers (and to the detriment of their children) over post-divorce arrangements concerning the residency, care and access over their children and demanding from him as the judge to decide in favour of either of them. Parents and lawyers from both sides seemed to be only involved in painting their adversarial ‘opponents’ as black and incapable as possible during the divorce proceedings in the family court.
The position family court Judge Jurgen Rudolph took in this was that he considered post-divorce physical custody arrangements between principally fit and capable parents not to be a standard-decision for the family court and himself as the family judge to make and decide on by default over the heads of either one of the parents. On the basis of the lawfully existing care-obligation in Germany for both parents to care for their children the making of physical custody arrangements over their children had by default to be considered primarily as a matter of responsibility for both the divorcing parents themselves to decide on in the first place.
Resulting from the in-fights between parents and their lawyers taking place in adversarial divorce proceedings, the regional family court of Cochem then experimented by changing its family court practises. In the new family court practice divorcing parents were strongly encouraged by the court to first come up themselves with a mutually and consensually agreed “parenting plan” for the residency, care and access to and over their children, as a mandatory precondition before being able to enter and finalise their divorce settlements in the Cochem family court.
As the parents now needed to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan or parenting arrangement proposal, this mandatory demand of the court both not only resulted in a reinstatement of the equal level playing field and cooperation between the parents looking for divorce (instead of the previous court practises magnifying the differences and conflicts between the parents). But equally important, it also lead to a complete practise overhaul within the professions involved in the divorce proceedings in the family court.
Instead of aggravating the parents in their conflict, all professions, i.e. lawyers, social workers, youth welfare workers, etc., began cooperating with each other in order to offer mediatory and other support services and help to the divorcing parents who were in demand of support in making the parenting plan needed in order to finalise their divorce proceedings. In time, the cooperation between professionals evolved from cooperation on the individual case levels to a more structured network cooperation of the involved professions around the Cochem family court.
These changes in Cochem court practises and the resulting changes in practises by the surrounding professionals in the meantime have earned wide recognition in Germany and are nationally referred to in Germany as the Cochem court practises (in German: Cochemer Praxis) or the Cochem model (in German: Cochemer Modell). They are now also taken into evaluation and consideration in a future planned reform of family law by the German federal ministry of justice in Berlin.
Comparing Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
The separate developments in these three European countries are interesting because of their convergence. In Belgium and the Netherlands developments have started top-down so to speak from the national or federal political-legislational level with the introduction of a new family law creating a national framework and new guidelines for the functioning of the family courts. While in Germany these same developments started not top-down but bottom-up from the family courts themselves experimenting with less adversarial proceedings and court practises regarding post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements and orders.
Of the law reforms in these three European countries the Belgian law reform on bi-location is to be regarded as the most clear-cut in its choice for shared parenting. The family law developments in the three European countries discussed however all share in their emphasis a distinctive shift towards implementing the concept of shared parenting and restoring an equal level playing field between both divorcing parents in family law and/or family court practises as opposed to the previous mother-only single parenting presumption that has dominated family law and family court practises in the countries of the European Union for so long.
Download the PDF version
Child and educational psychologist, Dr. Peter Tromp, presents brief summaries by country on the present state of Shared Parenting Legislation in the countries of the European Union.
1. Italy now has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody since a law change that came into effect on 16th March 2006.
2. France has a mix of joint legal custody and elements of joint physical custody (Residence Alternee) that came into effect in 2002. An estimated 15% of French children of divorce are now growing up in shared parenting and alternating residence arrangements.
3. Belgium on the initiative of its Socialist Party now has implemented presumptive 50/50 joint physical custody legislation (effective bi-location of the children) after parental separation in both its House of Commons and Senate which came into effect when it was formally published by the Belgian Federal Government on the 4th of September 2006. The new Belgian federal law on bi-location will be discussed at more length in my presentation below.
4. In the Netherlands joint legal custody was implemented in family law by the Dutch Parliament in 1996 making joint legal custody the standard for post-divorce parental authority. And with the new Dutch Law on Continued Parenting after Separation (no. 30145), that went into effect on 1 January 2009, this was followed by the introduction in Dutch family law of the basic principle of the equality of both parents and the presumption of equal parenting (both before and after divorce or separation, and regardless of whether the parents were previously married or not). The new Dutch family law also introduces a strong incentive for separating parents to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan during the separation and divorce proceedings.
The new Dutch law reform will be discussed at more length in my presentation below. Considering however the poor Dutch tradition on effective family law reform, the mainly decorative value of Dutch family court orders for fathers and the Dutch family court’s tradition of legislating from the bench, it still remains to be seen what this new Dutch law will bring in day-to-day family court practises for divorcing and separating parents and their children.
5. Norway still has sole physical custody but its Minister of Justice has already announced (in 2007) a complete family law review based on the principles of presumptive joint physical custody. Up until now, however, this has not yet materialized.
6. Ireland has, since the advent of Parental Equality (the Irish lobby group associated with Liam O’Gogain) circa. 1993, been considering the possibility of a change to laws of joint physical custody – which gives some gauge of the lack of seriousness with which such laws are being considered.
7. In Germany, a professional court intervention model called the Cochem model, based on principles of shared parenting, is gathering strength. This German Cochem court practice model will be discussed at more length in my presentation below. In this model parents are only allowed access to the family court for parental separation and divorce after they have themselves also filed a shared post-divorce parenting plan agreed by and between both of them. The German federal minister of Justice has previously (February 2006) announced future family law reform in which “elements of the Cochem model of multi-disciplinary court orchestrated intervention” are to be integrated into the German family law. Which elements, however, are as of yet unknown. This family law reform at the federal level has, therefore, not yet materialized.
8. Malta also has some form of shared parenting presumption according to Maltese family rights organizations. As of yet, however, it is unclear what is the exact nature of their shared parenting presumption.
9. Spain introduced a new shared parenting law in mid-2005 which is regarded as wholly inadequate by Spanish family rights lobbyists. Government officials and professionals on their own initiative are attempting to introduce policies reintegrating alienated children with their alienated parents and there is a vigorous movement for change.
10. The UK under the present Labour government has, as of yet, no effective shared parenting laws in existence. In his simultaneous presentation at the Drama Conference based on a study of the British Law Commission’s research papers Robert Whiston found that court-ordered shared parenting was commonly practiced in the south part of England in the second half of the last century until it was eliminated by the Children Act 1989 (Whiston, 2009a). At present, the oppositional Conservative Party – which is expected to win the next 2009 elections – has adopted Equal Parenting Family Law Reform as part of its election program. Also some judicially-motivated efforts to introduce norms of shared parenting do exist, in spite of the family-hostile parameters of the present law and fiscal framework.
11. Luxembourg is also said to have introduced post-divorce joint physical custody legislation.
Other jurisdictions
- Australia passed a Shared Parenting Bill in the Senate in 2006 of the window dressing sort. Australia in fact is a good example of the sort of jurisdiction that repeatedly passing pretend laws that are having no real effects on keeping both parents involved in children’s lives after parental separation. And each time it is claimed that the present law proposal will be better than the last, while children of separation continue to grow up in a family-hostile environment. The same pattern can be observed in EU-countries like the UK, the Netherlands and Spain.
- In the USA several states have implemented shared parenting legislation.
6. Recent developments in family law and family courts in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
Family law reform in Belgium
Belgium already had a presumption of joint legal custody in its family law since the nineties of the last century.
Since September 2006 the Belgian federal law on “bi-location” or “alternating residence” also came into effect after having passed both houses in the Belgian federal parliament. This new law additionally introduced a presumption of joint physical custody, care and residency as the norm or preferred post-divorce parenting arrangement to be ordered by the Belgian family courts. Furthermore immediate unilateral court-access for either of the divorced or separated parents in requesting for additional reinforcement orders if needed was introduced.
Contrary to common belief the Belgian family law reform of September 2006 however did not introduce a 50/50 joint physical care and residency arrangement as the fixed end-result for all divorcing or separating Belgian parents. Instead it introduced a presumption of dual location or shared residency which by law should be taken into serious consideration and thorough investigation with priority in each individual case by the Belgian family courts and judges on the request of either one of the divorcing parents separately.
In the situation where both separating parents consensually forward shared residency, care and access proposals between the two of them in the divorce and separation proceedings, the law puts the Belgian family courts and judges under the obligation to accept those mutually consented proposals as leading in the court-orders to be subsequently imposed in the divorce and separation proceedings.
In effect the wishes with regard to the post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements of either parent parties involved were thus again acknowledged and reinstated at the core of Belgian family law and family court proceedings regarding physical custody, residency and care. By law Belgian family court judges were endowed with the obligation to explicitly specify in their court-orders their decisions and provisions with regard to the imposed post-divorce residence and care arrangements in writing if they were to deviate from the presumptive and preferred bi-location or shared parenting arrangement in their court-orders.
These new Belgian law provisions have put shared parenting at the forefront of the family courts decision-making regarding the care, access and residency of the children involved, while the need and obligation imposed by law on the Belgian family courts and judges to extensively specify in writing in their imposed court-orders as to why a shared parenting or bi-location order was not imposed, opens the possibility for appeal of the courts decisions and motivations.
A further additional but underestimated new element of the Belgian family law reform is the introduction of immediate or priority access to the courts and judges on the request of either one of the parties one-sidedly. This can be activated unilaterally and individually – without the need of being represented by a lawyer at the court-session requested for – for additional reinforcement orders of the court when the court-ordered parenting arrangements were not sufficiently complied with by the other parent and when there were complaints about the other parent with regard to abiding by the specific parenting arrangements laid down by the judge in the original case residency, care and access order(s) given.
Although the law, as a federal national framework, has been in effect for only 2,5 years – and so it is too early to evaluate its effects thoroughly – first impressions are that it has contributed strongly to the Kantian appeasement between divorcing and separating parents in Belgium. This contributes to both the leading civil and family law principle of appeasement between conflicting parties as well as to the best interest of the children involved who now flourish far better under the care of the appeased but separated parents.
Family law reform in the Netherlands
In 1996 joint legal custody (in Dutch: gezamenlijk gezag) was implemented by law by the Dutch Parliament making joint legal custody the standard for post-divorce parenting in the Netherlands to oblige with EVRM Article 8 on the Right to Family Life.
However, shortly after the introduction of the law, the family courts in conjunction with the Dutch High Court neutralised the Dutch Parliament’s specific intent for a law by to keep both parents involved in children’s lives.
Perversely, the judiciary undermined Parliament’s sovereignty by stating that joint legal custody could be awarded but that it did not automatically entitle fathers to contact and access arrangements.
Over the past few years the Dutch Parliament has taken several new initiatives to introduce joint physical custody and equal parenting as the legal presumption for post-divorce parenting arrangements.
The first attempt was the legal initiative on administrative divorce (divorce without the use of a court and representing lawyers) and continued parenting, No. 29676 by parliament in 2004 (Luchtenveld, 2004), better known as the Luchtenveld-proposal [5]. It passed the Dutch House of Commons in the winter of 2005 only to be left stranded in the Dutch Senate in the summer of 2006. This however was mainly caused by the “Administrative Divorce” part of the law being contradictory to lawyers’ interests, which hit on heavy resistance with the Dutch judiciary[6].
Another new attempt for family law reform, better known as the “Donner-proposal”, was then made on the initiative of the Ministry of Justice with the Law on Continued Parenting after Separation (No. 30145). This law while it passed in the Dutch House of Commons in June 2006, on the initiative of the Dutch Socialist Party was unexpectedly altered by a constitutional majority amendment introducing equal parenting as the presumption for post-divorce parenting. On November 25th 2008 this law passed the Dutch Senate. It went into effect two days ago on January 1st 2009.
This new law has the following main positive features with regard to shared parenting arrangements and the reinforcement of parenting orders by the Dutch family courts:
• It introduces and aims to guarantee in Dutch family law the basic principle of equality for both parents and the presumption of equal parenting both before and after divorce or separation, and regardless of whether the parents were previously married or not.
• It introduces a strong incentive for parents to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan during the separation and divorce proceedings.
• Adding new but complicated reinforcement possibilities to the toolbox of options available to judges to ensure compliance with court-ordered parenting arrangements.
However, the law also has some distinctly negative features for shared parenting as it once again re-opens the possibilities for the family courts to deviate from the Parliamentary default presumption of joint legal custody. This could give rise to new ways and new reasons for a court to exclude a father from parenting his children. For a more detailed account of the features in the new Dutch family law on parenting after divorce however I further refer to the Appendix A with this presentation.
Reforms in Germany – The Cochem court-practice model
Several years ago a family court judge Jurgen Rudolph – based in the German regional family court of Cochem was confronted time and again with two equally capable parents. Both were forced to fight each other – almost to the death – in adversarial court proceedings. His radical solution will be detailed later in this paper.
Also in Germany a post-divorce presumption of joint legal custody was already in effect in family law since 1998, when several years ago the family court judge Jurgen Rudolph (Rudolph, 2007) – residing at the German regional family court of the city and district of Cochem – in his courtroom bench was confronted with capable parents fighting each other with the help of their lawyers (and to the detriment of their children) over post-divorce arrangements concerning the residency, care and access over their children and demanding from him as the judge to decide in favour of either of them. Parents and lawyers from both sides seemed to be only involved in painting their adversarial ‘opponents’ as black and incapable as possible during the divorce proceedings in the family court.
The position family court Judge Jurgen Rudolph took in this was that he considered post-divorce physical custody arrangements between principally fit and capable parents not to be a standard-decision for the family court and himself as the family judge to make and decide on by default over the heads of either one of the parents. On the basis of the lawfully existing care-obligation in Germany for both parents to care for their children the making of physical custody arrangements over their children had by default to be considered primarily as a matter of responsibility for both the divorcing parents themselves to decide on in the first place.
Resulting from the in-fights between parents and their lawyers taking place in adversarial divorce proceedings, the regional family court of Cochem then experimented by changing its family court practises. In the new family court practice divorcing parents were strongly encouraged by the court to first come up themselves with a mutually and consensually agreed “parenting plan” for the residency, care and access to and over their children, as a mandatory precondition before being able to enter and finalise their divorce settlements in the Cochem family court.
As the parents now needed to come up with a mutually agreed parenting plan or parenting arrangement proposal, this mandatory demand of the court both not only resulted in a reinstatement of the equal level playing field and cooperation between the parents looking for divorce (instead of the previous court practises magnifying the differences and conflicts between the parents). But equally important, it also lead to a complete practise overhaul within the professions involved in the divorce proceedings in the family court.
Instead of aggravating the parents in their conflict, all professions, i.e. lawyers, social workers, youth welfare workers, etc., began cooperating with each other in order to offer mediatory and other support services and help to the divorcing parents who were in demand of support in making the parenting plan needed in order to finalise their divorce proceedings. In time, the cooperation between professionals evolved from cooperation on the individual case levels to a more structured network cooperation of the involved professions around the Cochem family court.
These changes in Cochem court practises and the resulting changes in practises by the surrounding professionals in the meantime have earned wide recognition in Germany and are nationally referred to in Germany as the Cochem court practises (in German: Cochemer Praxis) or the Cochem model (in German: Cochemer Modell). They are now also taken into evaluation and consideration in a future planned reform of family law by the German federal ministry of justice in Berlin.
Comparing Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
The separate developments in these three European countries are interesting because of their convergence. In Belgium and the Netherlands developments have started top-down so to speak from the national or federal political-legislational level with the introduction of a new family law creating a national framework and new guidelines for the functioning of the family courts. While in Germany these same developments started not top-down but bottom-up from the family courts themselves experimenting with less adversarial proceedings and court practises regarding post-divorce residency, care and access arrangements and orders.
Of the law reforms in these three European countries the Belgian law reform on bi-location is to be regarded as the most clear-cut in its choice for shared parenting. The family law developments in the three European countries discussed however all share in their emphasis a distinctive shift towards implementing the concept of shared parenting and restoring an equal level playing field between both divorcing parents in family law and/or family court practises as opposed to the previous mother-only single parenting presumption that has dominated family law and family court practises in the countries of the European Union for so long.
Download the PDF version
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
