Child Safety First in Custody Decisions

Summary#

This bill (Keeping Children Safe Act) amends Canada’s Divorce Act to put child safety and the impact of family violence at the center of court decisions after separation. It adds duties for family lawyers to screen for risk, guides courts on how to weigh evidence of coercive control (a pattern of control, intimidation, or isolation), and changes how courts handle allegations that a parent manipulated a child against the other parent. It also adjusts rules for hearing directly from children and updates relocation tests.

• Requires family lawyers to assess and plan for family-violence risk and safety (Divorce Act s.7.7(2.1)–(2.2)).
• Repeals the court’s duty to probe reconciliation; reconciliation steps occur only on joint request (s.10(1) repealed; s.10(2)).
• Bars courts from relying on “parental alienation”-type allegations, with a narrow exception (s.16(3.1)–(3.2)).
• Prohibits courts from ordering reunification therapy and from restricting time with a closely connected parent to fix a child’s relationship with the other parent (s.16.1(4.1)–(4.2)).
• Clarifies best‑interest factors around family violence and myths, and removes any presumption of equal parenting time or ongoing contact with both parents (s.16(5), s.16(5.1), s.16(6)).
• Lets courts receive a child’s views directly, if both parents agree and an amicus curiae (independent “friend of the court”) is present (s.16.1(1.1)–(1.2)).
• Changes relocation rules and burdens of proof, generally easing moves by the child’s primary caregiver (s.16.92–16.93).
• Allows existing orders based on “alienation” findings to be reopened as a “change in circumstances” (Transitional).

What it means for you#

• Households and parents

  • Family lawyers must assess risk of family violence and create a safety plan, and inform clients about support services (s.7.7(2.1)–(2.2)). This applies once the law takes effect.
  • Courts cannot assume equal parenting time or that ongoing contact with both parents is always best. Each case turns on evidence (s.16(6)).
  • Courts cannot treat late reports, lack of police charges, continued cohabitation, inconsistent statements, or lack of visible injuries as reasons to doubt family‑violence claims by themselves (s.16(5)).
  • Leaving an abusive household, going to a shelter, or leaving the province with children, with or without notice, is not automatically against the child’s best interests (s.16(5.1)).
  • Allegations that one parent manipulated a child to resist contact cannot be considered in best‑interest decisions, unless there is evidence of deliberate and repeated interference and that parent has engaged in family violence; even then, the evidence cannot be used to support an “alienation” allegation (s.16(3.1)–(3.2)).
  • Courts may not order reunification therapy or cut time with a closely connected parent just to improve the child’s relationship with the other parent (s.16.1(4.1)–(4.2)).

• Children

  • A court may hear your views directly in writing or through a private interview with an amicus curiae present, but only if both parents agree, it is in your best interests, safety and privacy are protected, and there is no other suitable way to get your views (s.16.1(1.1)). The judge may limit what is disclosed to the parents if disclosure is not in your best interests (s.16.1(1.2)).

• Workers and professionals

  • Family lawyers have a duty to screen for family‑violence risks that could affect client safety or fair negotiation and to implement an appropriate plan and safety plan (s.7.7(2.1)–(2.2)).
  • Counselors may still be nominated to assist reconciliation, but only with both spouses’ request and consent (s.10(2)).

• Courts and decision‑makers

  • The court’s prior duty to satisfy itself about the possibility of reconciliation is repealed (s.10(1) repealed).
  • Best‑interest factors are adjusted to account for family violence when assessing parents’ ability to communicate and cooperate (s.16(3)(i)), the violent parent’s caregiving ability (s.16(3)(j)(i)), and steps taken to change behavior (s.16(4)(g)).
  • When a child lives mainly with the parent who wants to relocate, the court must authorize the move unless the other parent proves the move is not in the child’s best interests and that the child should live mainly with them (s.16.93(1)). If the child lives mainly with the objecting parent, the relocating parent bears the burden (s.16.93(2)). The court presumes the relocating parent will move either way (s.16.92(2)) and must not consider current parenting arrangements tied to the current locations (s.16.92(3)).

• People with existing orders

  • If a past decision relied on “alienation” findings, the new rule in s.16(3.1) counts as a “change in circumstances,” allowing a variation application (Transitional).

Expenses#

• Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Key points

  • No explicit appropriations, grants, or new federal fees in the bill text.
  • Federal fiscal note: Data unavailable.
  • The bill imposes new duties on legal advisers and changes court processes, but no cost estimates are provided in the bill or publicly available fiscal analyses.

Proponents' View#

• Centers child safety by directing courts to weigh family violence and coercive control without relying on myths, such as assuming abuse stops after separation or that late reports are less credible (s.16(5)).
• Reduces misuse of “parental alienation” claims by barring such allegations from best‑interest analysis, while allowing courts to consider actual, evidenced interference only where the interfering parent has engaged in family violence (s.16(3.1)–(3.2)).
• Protects children from harmful or coercive interventions by prohibiting court‑ordered reunification therapy and time restrictions aimed solely at fixing a relationship with the other parent (s.16.1(4.1)–(4.2)).
• Ensures victims can take immediate safety steps, like moving to a shelter or another province, without that alone counting against them in custody decisions (s.16(5.1)).
• Strengthens the child’s voice by permitting the court to hear directly from the child in a safeguarded way, including an amicus curiae and limits on disclosure to protect the child (s.16.1(1.1)–(1.2)).
• Clarifies relocation decisions with clear burdens of proof and a presumption that the relocating parent will move, reducing litigation over speculative scenarios (s.16.92–16.93).

Opponents' View#

• Risks under‑addressing genuine cases where a parent manipulates a child, because courts cannot consider “alienation” allegations in best‑interest decisions except in a narrow, family‑violence‑linked exception (s.16(3.1)–(3.2)).
• Eliminates any presumption favoring ongoing contact with both parents and equal time, which could reduce shared‑parenting outcomes even when safe and beneficial (s.16(6)).
• Bans court‑ordered reunification therapy and limits tools judges can use to repair damaged parent‑child relationships, potentially prolonging estrangement in non‑violent cases (s.16.1(4.1)–(4.2)).
• Alters relocation rules in a way that may increase approvals for moves by the primary caregiver, which could reduce the other parent’s time and involvement unless they meet a high burden to block the move (s.16.93(1)–(2), s.16.92(2)–(3)).
• Adds screening and safety‑planning duties for lawyers and new judicial steps (e.g., potential child interviews with an amicus), which could increase case complexity and time; cost and capacity impacts are not quantified (Data unavailable) (s.7.7(2.1)–(2.2), s.16.1(1.1)–(1.2)).
• Transitional rule may trigger more variation applications to revisit prior orders based on “alienation” findings, adding workload to courts without added resources (Transitional; Data unavailable).