Parliamentary committee repost advises tougher divorce rules

Child custody recommendations challenge feminist dogmas

Paul Tuns and Tim Bloedow

A special parliamentary committee co-chaired by two Liberals, Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway and Senator Landan Pearson, has recommended divorced parents should both remain involved in their children's lives unless there is a compelling reason for them not to.

In the report, For the Sake of the Children, released Dec. 9, the committee argued the "tender years doctrine," which assumes that young children are naturally better off with their mothers, should be disregarded as outdated and untrue. They suggested courts should give joint custody - called "shared parenting" in the report - unless one parent has demonstrated abusive behaviour.

They advised a mandatory 90-day notice if one parent wishes to move away from the former spouse and includes a provision that would adjust support payments to facilitate continued visits. Furthermore, they argued visitation by non-custodial parents should not be supervised unless supervision is clearly needed, and that grandparents should have easier access to children of divorce.

The committee also suggested encouraging divorcing parents to attend mediation sessions to develop a shared parenting plan. Calgary and Edmonton have both launched successful pilot projects where parents may enter into mediation to plan a parenting set-up. For the Sake of the Children says that parents who cannot work out an amicable plan should be required to take a course on the impact nasty break-ups have on children.

In June 1998, Statistics Canada reported that 20 per cent of children born in 1987-88 saw their parents divorce by age five.

Gwen Landolt, vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, told The Interim the recommendations are a good start, although the report could have been much better. She said the report begins to remedy "the unquestionable discrimination against men" that the current custody regime enforces.

The reason courts grant custody disproportionately to mothers is that they have "accepted the feminist myth that all men are abusive and uncontrolled." Landolt says studies do not prove that assumption, but it remains deeply ingrained in Canada's family courts.

Landolt said REAL Women hoped there would be stronger punishments for custodial parents who deny non-custodial parents access. A 1996 law increased the punishment for fathers who fail to maintain custody payments, but there is no commensurate punishment for mothers who who deny fathers access to their children.

Politically, the ball is now in the justice minister's court. Anne McLellan is expected to mull over the report until early spring and then propose amendments to the 30-year-old divorce law. Pundits say it will be difficult for the feminist MP from Edmonton to dismiss the recommendations outright, but some revisions are expected.

Other recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access:

- that action be taken to deal with false accusations of abuse and neglect in the context of divorce cases. In a dissenting report, the Reform Party criticized the committee for not taking a stronger stand on this issue, in spite of having acknowledged evidence indicating such false allegations constitute a serious, common problem. The Reform Party also criticized the committee for not recommending stronger means of enforcing child access arrangements.

- that governments do more to help couples who are struggling, before they begin divorce proceedings. This includes making funds available to help churches and community groups operate marriage enrichment programs. Sen. Cools, who said that those recommendations originated with her, told The Interim she has heard personal testimonies about the success of such programs.

- that the preamble of a new Divorce Act include references to the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which are applicable to custody and access issues. Pro-family forces, concerned about the ramifications of the entire Convention document, question the need to appeal to this international agreement, instead of simply allowing legitimate principles to stand on their own.

- that "sexual orientation not be considered a negative factor in the disposition of shared parenting decisions." Except as an overture to political correctness, it wasn't clear why gay lobbyists were permitted to address the committee in the first place, since the issue being discussed related to post-divorce proceedings. Given that homosexual couples are not permitted by law to marry, they cannot divorce; thus their relationships had no bearing on the committee's scope of study.

- Tim Bloedow