598 - Priority to the safety of children | Québec

Summary#

Bill 598 amends the Civil Code of Quebec to better protect children and parents who are victims of domestic violence.
It removes any automatic presumption that the exercise of parental authority by both parents is in the best interest of the child. A "presumption" is a rule that guides the decision unless proven otherwise.
It creates a presumption that granting custody, whether sole or shared, to a parent recognized as a perpetrator of domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child. This parent can overturn this presumption if they prove that custody is in the best interest of the child and provide concrete safety guarantees (measures to prevent and stop the violence).
It adds a rule stating that unproven allegations of domestic violence, as well as any behavior aimed at protecting oneself or the child, are presumed irrelevant against the parent who reports or is a victim when decisions about custody or parental authority are made.
The law is set to come into force on the date of its enactment.

If you are separating or in a custody dispute:
- The court no longer starts from the idea that automatically sharing parental authority serves the best interest of the child.
- If a parent has been recognized by a court as a perpetrator of domestic violence (or is seeking a similar judicial declaration), it will be more difficult for them to obtain custody. They will need to demonstrate the best interest of the child and provide safety measures (e.g., supervised visits, treatment, clear commitments).
- If you have reported violence, the fact that your allegations have not yet been proven, or that you have taken protective actions (e.g., leaving the home, limiting contact), should not be held against you in custody decisions.
For children: safety and the best interest of the child take precedence, especially in the context of violence.
For professionals (lawyers, social workers, courts): more risk assessments, safety plans, and evidence regarding domestic violence will be required.

For the State:
- Limited but real costs to adapt court practices, train staff, and update guidelines.
- Possible pressures on supervised visitation services, risk assessment, and legal aid.
For families:
- Potential costs related to supervised visits, intervention programs, and legal fees.
- Hearings may take longer when domestic violence is involved.

The safety of children and the victim parent comes first. The text clarifies this objective.
It prevents a presumption in favor of co-parenting from obscuring situations of violence.
Protective parents are no longer "penalized" for reporting or taking protective measures.
The burden of proof is more heavily placed on the perpetrator of violence, who must demonstrate real guarantees.
The bill aligns with recent trends recognizing the impact of violence (including coercive control) on children.

Removing any presumption in favor of joint parental authority could, according to some, weaken co-parenting when violence is not an issue.
The notion of a "parent recognized as a perpetrator of domestic violence" may raise debates: what criteria, what decisions count, and for how long.
Cases could become more complex and lengthy, with more disputes over the proof of violence and "sufficient guarantees."
There is a risk of restricting the parent-child relationship in cases of past or isolated violence that has been resolved if courts apply the presumption too broadly.
Increased pressure on public and community resources (supervised visits, intervention programs).