Bill C-223, the proposed Keeping Children Safe Act, would amend the federal Divorce Act. Its stated goal is to improve safety and decision-making in divorce cases involving family violence, especially for children. The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or come into force, so these are proposed changes, not rules confirmed to be in force.
Legal advisers acting for a spouse would have to assess certain risks of family violence and, if there are reasonable grounds to believe a risk exists, take steps to implement an appropriate plan, ensure the family has a safety plan, and tell the spouse about support services known to the adviser. Evidence of a risk would also be a reason not to encourage reconciliation or family dispute resolution.
Courts would be barred from considering allegations that a spouse deliberately manipulated a child into becoming estranged from or resisting contact with the other spouse. A limited exception would allow relevant evidence of deliberate and repeated interference where the accused spouse has engaged in family violence, and the evidence is not presented to support the barred allegation.
Courts would have to avoid specified inferences about family violence—for example, that it has ended because spouses separated, no report was made, or there are no visible injuries. Leaving a home because of violence, including to go to a shelter or leave the province with children, would not by itself be contrary to the child’s best interests.
A court could get a child’s views directly, in writing or through a private interview with an amicus curiae (a person assisting the court), only if both spouses agree, the court finds it is in the child’s best interests, safety and privacy would not be compromised, and there is no other appropriate way.
A court could not order reunification therapy or let one spouse consent to it without the other spouse’s consent. It also could not restrict a parent’s time with a child who has a close connection with them just to improve the child’s relationship with the other parent.
For relocation cases, the bill would change what courts consider and who must prove what. If the child spends most of their time with the parent planning to move, the court must authorize the relocation unless the objecting parent proves both that it is not in the child’s best interests and that the child should mainly live with them.
Legal advisers: If you act for a spouse in a divorce, you would have a new duty to consider whether there are reasonable grounds to believe family violence could affect the spouse’s or a family member’s safety, or the spouse’s ability to negotiate a fair agreement. If so, you would have to take steps to implement an appropriate plan, ensure the family has a safety plan, and share information about support services you know.
Spouses and children: The bill would change factors and presumptions courts use in parenting and relocation decisions. It would not require a court to hear directly from every child; that would remain a conditional power.
Parents considering relocation: The court would presume the relocating parent will move whether or not the child is allowed to move. The court could not consider the parties’ current parenting-time arrangement in deciding whether to authorize relocation.
People in ongoing cases: The bill says cases begun before it comes into force and not finally decided by then would be dealt with under the Divorce Act as it reads on that day. It also treats the new rule on estrangement allegations as a change in circumstances for certain variation applications based on earlier decisions.
The bill would require legal advisers to assess risks and take specified steps when the conditions are met, but it gives no estimate of costs or staffing.
The supplied text does not appropriate money or set fees or fines.
The supplied material does not give the bill’s status or a commencement date.
The parent Divorce Act is not supplied, so I could not verify the current rules or confirm the full extent of what is new. The bill also repeals a provision on reconciliation without including the text of that provision.
The bill does not explain how advisers should assess risk, what counts as an appropriate plan, or how they must ensure a family has a safety plan.
The supplied text does not define “family violence,” “close connection,” or “deliberate and repeated attempts.” The parent Act is not supplied, so I could not check whether it defines these terms.
The bill does not set out how a court would arrange a child interview, what qualifications an amicus curiae must have, or how the court would decide whether to disclose the child’s evidence to the spouses.
The bill appears intended to make safety and the effects of family violence more explicit in divorce decisions.
A possible argument for requiring legal advisers to assess risk is that it could prompt safety planning before negotiation or dispute resolution begins.
The restrictions on inferences could help courts avoid treating separation, lack of reports, or lack of visible injuries as proof that violence did not happen or no longer matters.
Allowing a court to hear a child’s views directly in limited circumstances could provide information that is otherwise difficult to obtain.
The bill requires advisers to act but does not set out a method, standard plan, or oversight process. That could leave important decisions about what is appropriate unclear.
The exception allowing evidence of repeated interference is limited, but the bill does not define that conduct or explain how courts should separate it from the barred allegation.
Direct evidence from a child requires both spouses’ agreement. One concern is that this condition could prevent the court from hearing directly from a child even when the other conditions are met.
The relocation presumption and changed proof requirements could shape outcomes substantially, but the supplied text does not explain how they would interact with other parts of the Divorce Act.