studies that list common problems (like poor mental heath) experienced by children
from fatherless homes. While the idea is amicable, valid counterarguments point
out the flaws with this approach to family law.

First, this legal presumption puts the onus on the parents to prove if the
presumption is false in their own case. This can lead to fighting, bickering,
and name-calling between parents—stressing the child or children greatly

as they are stuck in the middle. Secondly, in cases of abuse, presumed
shared responsibility can endanger the child. An automatic presumption
of equal shared parenting can create difficult biases to fight against for the
parent facing abuse. Even though the equal shared parenting is rebuttable,
creating the necessity to rebut creates unnecessary barriers. Thirdly, this does not
fit with the different schedules of different families. Ferrying children back and forth
between houses can prove to be detrimental, especially considering schooling, but
the presumption creates an obligation to this rigid structure. Presumptions have caused
problems in our very recent past, so perhaps it would do better to do without them—just
as new versions of BC Family Law and Canada’s Divorce Act have shown.

POSITIVE CHANGES TO OUR LAW
According to the Government of Canada’s website, federal family laws had
not been significantly changed in 20 years—that is until 2019, when Bill
C-78 was passed (one which was concerned with how the language
of Family Law was impacting the outcome of cases). Changes in
provincial laws, like those made in 2013 to BC’s Family Law, are
similar to those in Bill C-78. Alberta has made comparable
changes on a provincial scale as well.
The language used in courts previously suggested that there
are “winners” and “losers” in family law cases. Such a system
traps parents in a mindset where sole custody is the ultimate prize—
regardless of the cost of damaging a relationship with your child’s
other parent. Now, the system’s revised language and practice reflects
its new goals: prioritizing the child’s best interests and encouraging
shared parenting styles (instead of sole physical custody) when applicable.
Previously used terms like “custody” have been criticized as descriptors
that conjure images of ownership more than healthy family relationships. Many
places employ “parenting responsibilities” rather than “child custody.” Instead
of pitting parents against one another, the new language is meant to change
society’s perspective and expectations for child custody cases in a positive way that
benefits deserving parents.

cc

The definition of ‘reasonable’ access is along
the lines of ‘one night during the school week,
every second weekend, and half of the summer

holidays, with unlimited telephone access.

 

The change in tone has certainly prevented more cases from isolating fathers; current
statistics considering physical custody show that the 2012-2015 dataset saw both men and
women with a reduction in sole physical custody cases from the 2006-and-prior dataset:
women from 68.7 percent to 51.8 percent—and men from 9.7 percent to 8.9. The
cases resulting in shared custody increased from 10.2 percent to 26.5 percent.
In an interview with the Other Press, Steve, a recently divorced father
who is still going through the system, expressed his appreciation for the
recent changes. He stated that the current system is not biased
against men, but historically (and recently) this clearly was
not the case. “The changes that were made to the Child
and Family Law Act in June 2019 to be guided by the best
interests of the child [...] helped me tremendously in my
divorce. | am certain that my ex-wife would have taken the
children away from me and without my legal entitlement

to access, | would have lost the opportunity to build a
on" _ relationship with them.”

Illustration by Athena Little