URGENT: Is Canada About to Legislate the Erasure of the Parent-Child Bond?

If you are a parent fighting to stay in your child’s life, you know that the family court system is already a battlefield. You have felt the agony of being erased from your child’s life through manipulation, coaching, and false narratives. Now, the Canadian government is considering a law that could make that erasure permanent.

Bill C-223 is not just another piece of legislation; it is a direct threat to your rights as a parent and your child’s right to your love. As currently drafted, this bill seeks to legally "blind" judges to the reality of parental alienation. By removing the "Maximum Contact" principle and prohibiting courts from considering evidence of deliberate manipulation, Bill C-223 effectively hands a toolkit to the alienating parent and their legal team, allowing them to weaponize the system to sever your bond with your child—with no judicial oversight to stop it.

We Have Built Your Defense. Now, We Need Your Voice. P.A.P.A. Canada has submitted an exhaustive, 10-page expert brief based on months of in-depth research and analytical data to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This document is your shield. It's unbiased and fact based comprehensive analysis exposes the flaws in Bill C-223 and provides the scientific, peer-reviewed evidence—from internal studies of our vast P.A.P.A. members and contributors, to Queen’s University to the world’s leading psychologists—proving that alienation is a severe form of child abuse that the law cannot ignore.

How You Can Fight Back TODAY:

1. Read the Brief and short Executive Summary Below: Arm yourself with the facts. Use the line-by-line analysis in this document to understand exactly how this bill will impact your specific custody battle.

2. Use the Evidence: The studies cited in our brief are the same ones you can present to your legal team to validate your case and the importance of shared parenting.

3. Contact Your MP Immediately: We have provided a "Copy and Paste" action template below. It uses the specific language and research from our brief to tell your Member of Parliament exactly why this bill must be stopped.

4. Please forward us their response: By email to info@papaorg.com . We intend to use the findings for further study; however, we will keep your participation confidential and your identity anonymous.

The bond between a parent and child is sacred. It is time to tell Ottawa that children deserve both parents, good parents deserve their children, and that the truth cannot be legislated away.

We've poured our heart and soul into this cause throughout the process, but we still need your help to make sure the rights of good parents, and our beloved children, aren't taken away by bills like these. Ten minutes of your time WILL make all the difference. Be a part of the solution, stand with P.A.P.A. as we stand with you.    -P.A.P.A 

HELP STOP BILL C-223

Executive Summary of Bill C-223 Brief Submission from P.A.P.A.

Overview, Key Notes, Recommendations, and Highlights.
The sponsors will claim this bill "protects victims." To counter this, I feel it is best to focus
strictly on how the bill destroys the rules of evidence and strips judges of their discretion.
Here are the 8 most harmful clauses, with corresponding Item # from my brief, ranked
from most destructive to least, explicitly showing how the bill forces judges to accept
uncorroborated accusations while ignoring evidence and actual emotional abuse.
1. Banning Evidence of Emotional Child Abuse - Item 11 (Section 16(3.1))
● What the bill says: The court shall not take into consideration any allegation that a
spouse has, through deliberate manipulation, persuaded a child to become
estranged from the other spouse.
● The Harm: This is the most dangerous clause. It literally legislates a blind spot to
coercive control. If a targeted parent brings hard evidence of psychological
manipulation or coaching, this clause legally forbids the judge from looking at it,
thereby shielding the abusive parent.
2. Forbidding Judges from Assessing Credibility Item 12 (Section 16(5))
● What the bill says: The bill dictates that a court shall not infer that an allegation is
unreliable just because there are: no police reports, a finding of "not guilty" in
criminal court, late disclosures, or inconsistent statements.
● The Harm: This replaces judicial evaluation with rigid prohibitions. It forces family
courts to ignore logical inferences and accept inconsistent testimony or criminally
acquitted claims, destroying fundamental due process and enabling the strategic
use of uncorroborated allegations.
3. Banning Courts from Ordering Therapeutic Help Item 15 (Section 16.1(4.1))
● What the bill says: The court shall not restrict the parenting time of a spouse to
improve a child's relationship with the other, nor can it require a child to attend
reunification therapy.
● The Harm: This inappropriately cabins judicial authority. It strips the judge of the
ability to order necessary therapeutic interventions when a parent and child become
estranged, (despite overwhelming study results proving success through these
methods) leaving the court powerless to fix broken family dynamics.
4. Fast-Tracking Relocation Without Oversight Item 21 (Section 16.93)
● What the bill says: If a child spends the majority of their time with the relocating
party, "the court must authorize the relocation".
● The Harm: This replaces discretionary judicial oversight with a rigid mandate. It
lowers the threshold to a near-automatic right to relocation, prioritizing the relocating
parent over a thorough, case-specific inquiry into the best interests of the child.
Immediately severs the bond between parent and child for undetermined lengths of
time.
5. Destroying the Child's "Status Quo" Item 20 (Section 16.92(2))
● What the bill says: In deciding relocation, the court shall presume that the person
intending to relocate will do so regardless of whether the move is prohibited.
● The Harm: By legally assuming relocation is a certainty, it removes the child's
"status quo" as a viable option. It forces judges into a binary choice and eliminates
the possibility of maintaining the child's daily access to both parents in their current
city.
6. Erasing a History of Court Compliance Item 19 (Section 16.92(1)(g))
● What the bill says: It removes the instruction to review whether a parent "has
complied with" past court orders, replacing it with whether they are "likely to
comply".
● The Harm: Past behavior, such as contempt of court, is factual evidence. Replacing
this with a guess about the future restricts the court's ability to review past patterns
and risks excusing established non-compliance.
7. Replacing Evidence with "Subjective Belief" Item 3 (Section 7.7(2.1))
● What the bill says: It instructs legal advisers to take action if there are "reasonable
grounds to believe" there is a risk of family violence.
● The Harm: Using subjective terms leaves the advisor to act on personal opinion or
biases, rather than evidence. It exacerbates the judicial burden of discerning factual
evidence from unsubstantiated allegations.
8. Retroactively Changing Past Judgments Item 22 (Transitional Provision 9)
● What the bill says: If a court previously relied on a decision regarding deliberate
manipulation/alienation, this act deems that a "change in circumstances".
● The Harm: This retroactively dismantles the legal framework used to identify
parental alienation. It blinds the court to previously proven abusive behaviors like
coercive control and systematic denigration. This will also lead to an overloading of
an already backed up court system as cases will be returning to fight again in court,
resulting in more time of separation between parent and child in many situations.
If the sponsors of this bill truly cared about protecting children, they would want judges to
have access to all the evidence. I will remain available to provide further testimony to the
committee or Members of Parliament to expand on these short form points.
Note:
I would welcome the Members of Parliament who wish to utilize this information to use
wording such as "Mr. Chair, I am looking at a brief from P.A.P.A. Canada, an organization
representing several hundred thousand members globally. Aside from the multitude of
external studies they’ve cited, their own internal data alone shows that 98% of repeated
court order breaches go unpunished. This bill doesn't fix that; it makes it worse by
removing a judge's ability to evaluate evidence." in order to point out the significance of
our organization’s depth of study when creating this brief and listing our findings.
I would also suggest attacking the "Mediation" Redundancy: The bill repeatedly injects
the phrase "evidence of a risk of family violence" into sections about family dispute
resolution (Items 1 & 2). Members opposing the bill should point out that this is a
psychological tactic of subtle manipulation known as "cognitive priming". The current Act
already screens for violence. Adding it repeatedly is a legislative trick to discourage
mediation, pushing more families into expensive, adversarial court battles which—as the
brief notes—harms children financially.
The "Unanimous Consent" Trap on Reconciliation: Under Item 6, the bill tries to give
courts the power to refuse adjournment for reconciliation even if both spouses request it.
Members can ask: "Why does this government believe a judge should have the power to
stop two willing parents from trying to save their marriage and family through proven
structured counseling?" This highlights the theme of state overreach into the family. It may
also bring to the attention the bill’s attempt to revoke a judge’s power in certain instances,
yet provide the power of overreach in others, exposing the “Heads I win, Tails you lose”
theme of this bill’s asymmetrical discretion and jurisdictional hypocrisy.

Brief as submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

A Non-Partisan, Expert-Backed Coalition
The data and insights we provide are derived from a vast and diverse membership that is strictly non-partisan and gender-neutral.
Our coalition includes:
● Professional Stakeholders: Former judges, retired court workers, police officers, military veterans, educators, and Members
of Parliament.
● Specialists: Doctors, psychologists, and mental health experts specializing in family trauma.
● Impacted Families: Mothers, fathers, and adults who grew up as alienated children, as well as extended family members
affected by the loss of parent-child bonds.
The Case Against Bill C-223
While P.A.P.A. supports the protection of all family members from violence, our analysis indicates that Bill C-223, as drafted,
introduces rigid mandates that will inadvertently harm children by eroding the "Best Interests of the Child" standard. By removing
judicial discretion and ignoring the reality of emotional abuse, this bill risks:
1. Legislating Blindness to Coercive Control: Proposed Section 16(3.1) forbids judges from considering evidence of parental
alienation, a recognized form of emotional child abuse and coercive control.
2. Destabilizing Parent-Child Bonds: The repeal of the "Maximum Contact" principle contradicts decades of peer-reviewed
research proving that children thrive best when they have a meaningful relationship with both fit parents.
3. Mandating Evidentiary Double Standards: The bill proposes "myths and stereotypes" clauses that effectively forbid judges
from assessing the credibility of inconsistent or uncorroborated statements.
Statement of Concern regarding Bill C-223
While the stated goal of Bill C-223 is to address safety, our internal research cross-referenced with established academic studies
indicates that the bill as drafted will have a destabilizing effect on the Canadian family justice system. By introducing rigid mandates
and removing judicial discretion, this bill creates a "protection gap" for children who are victims of emotional abuse and coercive
control. The enclosed analysis provides a comprehensive, row-by-row review of the proposed changes. We highlight how specific
amendments—particularly those regarding the "Maximum Contact" principle and the consideration of parental
manipulation—contradict decades of peer-reviewed child psychology research by experts such as Dr. Richard Warshak, Dr. Linda
Nielsen, and Dr. Edward Kruk. We urge the Committee to maintain the current "Best Interests of the Child" standard, which allows for
a nuanced, fact-specific inquiry into every family's unique circumstances. I remain available to provide oral testimony or present our
internal data to the committee should you require further insight.
Respectfully,
Mr. Christopher Rauch
Executive Director, P.A.P.A. Canada
Managing Director P.A.P.A. (International)
Director of International Legislative Advocacy & Global Chapters
Host, The P.A.P.A. Podcast
papaorg.com / papaorg.co.uk | info@papaorg.com | 705-410-2811

Bill C-223 Comprehensive Analysis 

Item 1
● Current Divorce Act: 7.7 (1) Unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be
appropriate to do so, it is the duty of every legal adviser who undertakes to act on a spouse's behalf in a divorce proceeding
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: 7.7 (1) Unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be
appropriate to do so, which circumstances include evidence of a risk of family violence, it is the duty of every legal adviser
who undertakes to act on a spouse's behalf in a divorce proceeding
● Concerns & Solutions: This is a redundant addition of text, as the original act already considers family violence. Repeatedly
emphasizing "family violence" in this specific clause acts as a form of cognitive priming, potentially influencing a reader's
response and implying that family dispute resolution (FDR) is not an effective alternative if there is evidence of family
violence. Recent studies and evaluations of Canadian family law initiatives show that mediation has an over 80% success
rate. This keeps families out of courtrooms, leaves fewer points for judges to decide, decreases backlogs, and increases the
speed at which children resume regular access with both parents. Financial hardships resulting from lengthy court cases are
proven to dramatically affect the quality of life for children involved. Suggestion: Leave original text unchanged.
Item 2
● Current Divorce Act: (a) to encourage the person to attempt to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order
under this Act through a family dispute resolution process, unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it
would clearly not be appropriate to do so;
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Paragraph 7.7(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a) to encourage the person to
attempt to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order under this Act through a family dispute resolution
process, unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so, which
circumstances include evidence of a risk of family violence
● Concerns & Solutions: As mentioned above, this is a redundant addition of text and also acts as cognitive priming.
Suggestion: leave original text unchanged.
Item 3
● Current Divorce Act: (2) It is also the duty of every legal adviser who undertakes to act on a person's behalf in any
proceeding under this Act (a) to encourage the person to attempt to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order
under this Act through a family dispute resolution process, unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it
would clearly not be appropriate to do so; (b) to inform the person of the family justice services known to the legal adviser
that might assist the person (i) in resolving the matters that may be the subject of an order under this Act, and (ii) in
complying with any order or decision made under this Act; and (c) to inform the person of the parties' duties under this Act.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Section 7.7 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): Duty to assess
risk of violence (2.1) It is the duty of every legal adviser who undertakes to act on a spouse's behalf in a divorce proceeding
to consider whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk of family violence towards the spouse or
another family member that could adversely affect (a) the safety of the spouse on whose behalf they act or the safety of a
family member of the spouse; or (b) the ability of the spouse to negotiate a fair agreement. Duty to implement a plan (2.2)
If there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is such a risk of family violence, it is the duty of the legal adviser to take
steps to implement an appropriate plan, ensure that the family has a safety plan and inform the spouse of the support
services known to the legal adviser.
● Concerns & Solutions: Most legal professionals already take this into consideration and instruct clients to have a safety plan
if a risk is identified. Using subjective terms like "reasonable grounds to believe" leaves the legal advisor to form beliefs
based on personal opinion or biases, rather than evidence. This amendment exacerbates the existing judicial burden of
discerning factual evidence from unsubstantiated allegations. It may lead legal advisors to assume an unjustified risk of
family violence out of an abundance of caution to avoid liability. Suggestion: Reject (2.1) and (A)(B) in their entirety. Edit
(2.2) to become (2.1) and to read: "If there is evidence to substantiate a risk of family violence, it is the duty of the legal
adviser to take steps to implement an appropriate plan, ensure that the family has a safety plan and inform the spouse of
the support services known to the legal adviser."
Item 4 & 5
● Current Divorce Act: 10 (1) In a divorce proceeding, it is the duty of the court, before considering the evidence, to satisfy
itself that there is no possibility of the reconciliation of the spouses, unless the circumstances of the case are of such a
nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so. (2) Where at any stage in a divorce proceeding it appears to the
court from the nature of the case, the evidence or the attitude of either or both spouses that there is a possibility of the
reconciliation of the spouses, the court shall (a) adjourn the proceeding to afford the spouses an opportunity to achieve a
reconciliation; and
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Subsection 10(1) of the Act is repealed. The portion of subsection 10(2) of the Act before
paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: Adjournment (2) On request by both spouses at any stage in a divorce
proceeding, the court may
● Concerns & Solutions: Agree to repeal 10(1) ONLY with consideration of column 3 of the next row. Replacing section 10(2)
gives each of the spouses the individual right to decline reconciliation, but the phrase "the court may" forces the matter of
adjournment into the hands of the court, even when both parties agree to attempt structured reconciliation. Studies show a
60% to 75% success rate with structured reconciliation when both spouses are invested, versus <13% with a single spouse.
Solution: Amend (2) to end in "...the court shall express its belief of potential reconciliation and offer the parties the
opportunity to consent to". Reword (b) to read "or at the direction of the court" for grammatical continuity. Evidence proves
a high probability of success ONLY when BOTH spouses mutually desire reconciliation AND use proven, structured methods
recognized by the courts (e.g., EFT, the Gottman method). Therefore, replace 10(2)(b) with: "Nominate an individual or
company with the proper training and qualifications in couples therapy and or marriage counseling, agreed upon by both
spouses and the court, for MANDATORY therapy/counseling to assist in reconciliation immediately after adjournment."
Item 6
● Current Divorce Act: (b) with the consent of the spouses or in the discretion of the court, nominate (i) a person with
experience or training in marriage counselling or guidance, or (ii) in special circumstances, some other suitable person, to
assist the spouses to achieve a reconciliation.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: (3) Paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following: (b) with the consent of the
spouses and to assist them to achieve a reconciliation, nominate (i) a person with experience or training in marriage
counselling or guidance, or (ii) in special circumstances, some other suitable person.
● Concerns & Solutions: See above for proposed solution to Paragraph 10.
Item 7
● Current Divorce Act: 16(3)(c) each spouse's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's
relationship with the other spouse;
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Paragraph 16(3)(c) of the Act is repealed.
● Concerns & Solutions: Unless there are special circumstances with clear evidence of abuse, repealing this increases the
likelihood of a primary caregiver coercing and coaching the child away from the other parent. Alienating tactics are a form of
emotional abuse that have been proven to cause irreparable psychological damage to the child, negatively altering their
future. The weaponization of the child is often used against the target parent and can lead to severe mental health
problems, including suicide. Solution: Do not repeal.
Item 8 & 9
● Current Divorce Act: (3) In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all factors related to the
circumstances of the child, including (i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply
to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child; (j) any family violence and its
impact on, among other things, (i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for
and meet the needs of the child, and
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Paragraph 16(3)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following: (i) the ability and willingness of each
person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on
matters affecting the child, taking into consideration any evidence of family violence; (3) Subparagraph 16(3)(j)(i) of the Act
is replaced by the following: (i) the ability of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs
of the child, and
● Concerns & Solutions: As Section 16(3) already explicitly states that the court shall consider all factors, the proposed extra
emphasis on family violence is redundant and acts as a form of legislative priming. The court's consideration of a person's
willingness to care for and meet the needs of the child is critical. If a parent is unwilling, the child should not be forced into
their care due to the risk of neglect, regardless of whether family violence is involved. Solution: Section 16(3)(j)(i) should
remain unchanged.
Item 10
● Current Divorce Act: NEW SECTION
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Section 16 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3): Factor not to be
considered (3.1) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration any
allegation that a spouse has, or is likely to, through deliberate manipulation, persuade or encourage a child to become
estranged from or resist contact with the other spouse. Exception (3.2) Despite subsection (3.1), the court may consider
evidence of deliberate and repeated attempts by a spouse to interfere with a child's relationship with the other spouse if (a)
the spouse who is alleged to have engaged in the attempts to interfere has engaged in family violence; (b) the evidence is
relevant to a determination of the best interests of the child; and (c) the evidence is not presented to support an allegation
of conduct described in subsection (3.1).
● Concerns & Solutions: All relevant factors must be considered in determining the best interests of the child. Canadian case
law (e.g., L.S. v. M.K., Y.H.P. v. J.N., and A.M. v. C.H.) relies on judicial discretion to identify and consider parental alienating
tactics. Alienation is recognized as a form of emotional child abuse that damages mental health and leads to developmental
issues, including the inability to trust and form relationships. Studies from the Canadian Department of Justice, University of
Toronto, and Western University demonstrate that alienated children are at high risk for long-term psychological
disturbances. Proven effects include depression, anxiety, C-PTSD, low self-esteem, self-harm, future substance abuse as a
coping mechanism, and future relationship difficulties. Prohibiting the court from considering deliberate manipulation
forces judges to ignore established forms of emotional abuse, enabling the weaponization of children. Solution: DO NOT put
children in harm's way by allowing this "NEW SECTION".
Item 11
● Current Divorce Act: (4) In considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j) the court shall take the
following into account: (g) any steps taken by the person engaging in the family violence to prevent further family violence
from occurring and improve their ability to care for and meet the needs of the child; and
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Paragraph 16(4)(g) of the Act is replaced by the following: (g) evidence that any steps taken by
the person engaging in the family violence to change their behavior will improve their ability to care for and meet the needs
of the child and will prevent further family violence from occurring; and
● Concerns & Solutions: Legal matters should rely on evidence-based probability rather than hearsay. This amendment
appropriately adjusts evidentiary standards to require concrete evidence of behavioral change to ensure child safety.
Solution: Approve suggested 16(4)(g) alteration.
Item 12
● Current Divorce Act: (5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration
the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of their parenting time, decision-making
responsibility or contact with the child under a contact order.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Subsection 16(5) of the Act is replaced by the following: Myths and stereotypes (5) In
considering the impact of any family violence under paragraph (3)(j), the court shall not infer that it no longer occurs or has
ceased to have an impact, or that any reports or complaints of family violence were unreliable, inaccurate or exaggerated,
solely on the basis of any of the following grounds: (a) the spouses have separated or a divorce proceeding has commenced;
(b) there were no reports or complaints of family violence prior to separation, including to a police authority or child welfare
agency, or there have not been any such reports or complaints since separation; (c) no criminal charges were laid in respect
of family violence, or allegations were withdrawn, there was no intervention on the part of a child welfare agency or, in the
case of a trial for an offence involving family violence, a finding of not guilty is entered; (d) allegations of family violence are
made late in the proceedings or were not made in prior proceedings; (e) in a proceeding under this Act or in a criminal
proceeding, there are inconsistent statements or conflicting evidence in relation to incidents of family violence; (f) a spouse
continues to live with or maintain a financial, sexual or business relationship with their spouse, or previously left them but
has resumed cohabitation; or (g) there are no visible physical injuries or outward signs of fear. Decision to leave household
(5.1) A decision by a spouse to leave a household in which family violence occurs to reside in a shelter or other temporary
housing or to leave the province with any or all children of the marriage, with or without giving notice, is not, in and of itself,
contrary to the best interests of the child.
● Concerns & Solutions: By removing judges' discretion to assess credibility, this legislation restricts judicial authority and risks
negative outcomes for children. The current Act trusts judges to determine the "Best Interests of the Child" based on a
holistic review of evidence. Bill C-223 replaces judicial evaluation with rigid prohibitions that force courts to ignore logical
inferences. Subsection (c) prevents family courts from inferring that violence did not occur despite a criminal court acquittal,
creating conflicting evidentiary standards. Subsections (d) and (e) prevent judges from inferring fabrication from
inconsistent statements or late allegations, forcing courts to accept testimony that might be deemed unreliable elsewhere
and impacting due process. This enables the strategic use of uncorroborated allegations to bypass standard evidentiary
scrutiny and sever parent-child bonds immediately, isolating the child and reinforcing alienation narratives. Subsection (5.1)
risks incentivizing unilateral relocation without prior judicial scrutiny, destabilizing the child's life by removing them from
their school and support network. Solution: Reject these changes to preserve judicial discretion and ensure the court can
accurately assess credibility in the best interests of the child.
Item 13
● Current Divorce Act: (6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as
much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Subsection 16(6) of the Act is replaced by the following: Parenting time — no presumption (6)
In allocating parenting time, the court shall not presume that (a) the parenting arrangement that is most consistent with the
best interests of the child is one that allocates parenting time and decision-making responsibility to both spouses or equally
between the spouses; or (b) it is in the best interests of the child that they maintain ongoing contact with each spouse.
● Concerns & Solutions: Extensive research and meta-analyses (e.g., Queen's University, King's University College, Nielsen
[2018], Baude [2016], Warshak [2014], Kruk [2012], Department of Justice Canada, CRILF) demonstrate that children thrive
in all aspects of life when parenting time is maximized (approaching 50/50) with both capable, safe parents. Studies
increasingly favor the presumption of equal shared parenting, which fosters more successful co-parenting. A 50/50
arrangement removes incentives for a "winner-takes-all" litigation model, saving families and taxpayers significant financial
burdens (e.g., legal aid, court resources) and reducing the stress of returning to court for adjustments. Solution: Do not
allow this change and leave the original act 16(6) as is.
Item 14
● Current Divorce Act: 16 (1) The court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage in
making a parenting order or a contact order.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Section 16.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): Evidence
from child (1.1) Before making an order under subsection (1), in order to determine a child’s views and preferences, the
court may obtain information or evidence from the child directly in writing or by means of an interview with the child in
camera in the presence of an amicus curiae if (a) it is in the best interests of the child to provide the information or
evidence; (b) both spouses agree; and (c) the court is of the opinion that the safety and privacy of the child would not be
compromised and there is no other appropriate way to obtain the information. Disclosure (1.2) Any information or evidence
obtained under subsection (1.1) may be disclosed to the spouses only if the court is of the opinion that disclosure is in the
best interests of the child.
● Concerns & Solutions: Courts currently consider the views of the child via the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), an
appointed third party. However, these interviews are not recorded, creating a transparency deficit and relying heavily on the
discretion of the interviewer. Unrecorded settings can lead to a perceived lack of judicial accountability. Proposed Section
(1.2) restricts disclosure, which may empower one party to influence a child through coercive control and coaching to
present a desired narrative, while denying the targeted parent the opportunity to dispute the claims with evidence.
Solution: Leave 16(1) in its original writing.
Item 15
● Current Divorce Act: 16.1(4) Contents of parenting order (4) The court may, in the order, (a) allocate parenting time in
accordance with section 16.2; (b) allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with section 16.3; (c) include
requirements with respect to any means of communication, that is to occur during the parenting time allocated to a person,
between a child and another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility is allocated; and (d) provide
for any other matter that the court considers appropriate.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Section 16.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4): Not
permitted in parenting order (4.1) The court shall not, in the order, (a) restrict the parenting time of a spouse with whom
the child has a close connection for the purpose of improving a child’s relationship with the other spouse; or (b) require a
child to attend reunification therapy or allow a spouse to consent to the child attending reunification therapy without
seeking the consent of the other spouse. Definition of reunification therapy (4.2) In subsection (4.1), reunification therapy
includes any intervention, program, treatment, service or practice whose purpose is to create, repair or reestablish a
relationship between a child and a parent from whom the child is estranged or whom the child has rejected.
● Concerns & Solutions: Dictating strict prohibitions on therapeutic interventions or parenting time adjustments
inappropriately cabins judicial authority. It must remain at the court's discretion whether to "restrict parenting time" under
proposed (4.1)(a) on a case-by case basis, considering all factors including the root cause of the relationship’s deterioration.
Judges must retain the ability to order reunification therapy when necessary, such as when a parent and child become
estranged.
Item 16 & 17
● Current Divorce Act: 16.92 (1) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of a child of the marriage, the court shall, in
order to determine what is in the best interests of the child, take into consideration, in addition to the factors referred to in
section 16, (a) the reasons for the relocation; (b) the impact of the relocation on the child;
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: (1) Paragraph 16.92(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a) the reasons for the
relocation, including whether the reasons relate to family violence. (2) Subsection 16.92(1) of the Act is amended by adding
the following after paragraph (b): (b.1) the impact on the child of prohibiting the relocation, in particular in respect of the
child’s relationship with the person who intends to relocate the child;
● Concerns & Solutions: Similar to the alteration in 16(3)(i), the added text regarding family violence is superfluous, as the Act
already mandates that all factors be considered. The original text should remain unaltered. Additionally, the impact of
prohibiting relocation (proposed b.1) is already a presumed consideration of judges when evaluating the child's best
interests. The court must equally consider the child's relationship with both parents, rather than prioritizing the parent
seeking to relocate.
Item 18
● Current Divorce Act: (g) whether each person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending
application for a parenting order has complied with their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or
agreement, and the likelihood of future compliance.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: (3) Paragraph 16.92(1)(g) of the Act is replaced by the following: (g) whether each person who
has parenting time or decision-making responsibility or a pending application for a parenting order is likely to comply with
their obligations under family law legislation, an order, arbitral award, or agreement, taking into account the impact of
family violence on their ability to comply with their obligations
● Concerns & Solutions: The original text appropriately evaluates a spouse's proven track record of complying with court
orders and agreements to determine their ability to meet parental responsibilities. Past behavior, such as contempt of
orders, is a necessary indicator of future compliance. Replacing "has complied with" with "is likely to comply with," and
removing the assessment of future compliance, restricts the court's ability to review past patterns and risks excusing
established non-compliance.
Item 19
● Current Divorce Act: (2) In deciding whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall not consider, if the child’s
relocation was prohibited, whether the person who intends to relocate the child would relocate without the child or not
relocate.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Subsection 16.92(2) of the Act is replaced by the following: Presumption (2) In deciding
whether to authorize a relocation of the child, the court shall presume that the person who intends to relocate the child will
relocate regardless of whether the child’s relocation is prohibited.
● Concerns & Solutions: Substituting a mandatory presumption that a parent will relocate regardless of the court's decision
shifts the focus from a neutral inquiry to a predetermined outcome that risks the child's stability. By legally assuming
relocation is a certainty, this removes the "status quo" as a viable option, forcing judges into a binary choice: authorize the
move or separate the child from a primary caregiver. In shared living situations without a court order, this disrupts the
child's daily access to both parents and eliminates the possibility of a "same city" separation that maintains stability,
schooling, and social ties.
Item 20
● Current Divorce Act: (N/A)
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Factor not to be considered (3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the court shall not
take into consideration any arrangement regarding the exercise of parenting time by the parties in their current places of
residence.
● Concerns & Solutions: Proposed subsection (3) forbids the court from considering current parenting arrangements, forcing
judges to make decisions in an evidentiary vacuum. This legally blinds the court to the child's lived reality, erasing the
significance of established bonds, routines, and the status quo. It prevents the judge from accurately weighing the
emotional and developmental loss a child would suffer if daily contact with an involved parent (e.g., a 50/50 co-parent) is
severed. It requires the court to ignore the child’s current access to both parents, prioritizing the relocating parent over the
child's fundamental right to maintain existing relationships.
Item 21
● Current Divorce Act: 16.93 (1) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply with an order, arbitral award, or
agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spend substantially equal time in the care of each party, the party who
intends to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.
Marginal note: Burden of proof — person who objects to relocation (2) If the parties to the proceeding substantially comply
with an order, arbitral award or agreement that provides that a child of the marriage spends the vast majority of their time
in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the party opposing the relocation has the burden of proving that
the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Subsections 16.93(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following Burden of proof —
person who objects to relocation 16.93 (1) If, in accordance with an order, arbitral award, or agreement, a child of the
marriage spends the majority of their time in the care of the party who intends to relocate the child, the court must
authorize the relocation, unless the person opposing the relocation proves that (a) the relocation is not in the best interests
of the child; and (b) it is in the best interests of the child to reside primarily with the person opposing the relocation. Burden
of proof — person who intends to relocate child (2) If, in accordance with an order, arbitral award, or agreement, a child of
the marriage spends the majority of their time in the care of the party who opposes the relocation of the child, the person
intending to relocate the child has the burden of proving that the relocation would be in the best interests of the child.
● Concerns & Solutions: The proposed amendment to Section 16.93 replaces discretionary judicial oversight with a rigid
mandate that "the court must authorize the relocation," departing from the individualized "best interests of the child"
standard. By lowering the threshold to create a near-automatic right to relocation for primary caregivers, this undermines
established legal principles that prioritize a thorough, case-specific inquiry.
Item 22
● Current Divorce Act: (N/A)
● Proposed Bill C-223 Changes: Transitional Provisions Proceedings commenced before coming into force 8 A proceeding
commenced under the Divorce Act before the day on which this Act comes into force and not finally disposed of before that
day is to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the Divorce Act as it reads as of that day. Variation order —
change in circumstances 9 If, before the day on which this Act comes into force, a court, in making a decision, relied on an
allegation or a previous decision that a spouse had, through deliberate manipulation, persuaded or encouraged a child to
become estranged from or resist contact with the other spouse, then, for the purpose of subsection 17(5) of the Divorce
Act, the provisions enacted by subsection 4(4) of this Act are deemed to be a change in circumstances.
● Concerns & Solutions: The proposed modification potentially dismantles the legal framework used to identify and intervene
in cases of parental alienation, a recognized form of emotional child abuse. By retroactively deeming previous judicial
findings of manipulation as grounds for a change in circumstances, the legislation risks blinding the court to specific abusive
behaviors, such as coercive control, systematic denigration of the targeted parent, reality distortion, and the inducement of
pathological loyalty conflicts.
Organizational Research & Data: P.A.P.A. Canada
The following data is derived from internal research conducted by People Against Parental Alienation to identify systemic gaps in the
current family justice framework:
● P.A.P.A. Family Justice Transparency Report (2025/2026). This report exposes a critical failure in the enforcement of child
arrangement orders. Key findings include:
○ The Enforcement Gap: Internal data indicates that while thousands of orders are breached annually through the
denial of contact, only 1.7% of enforcement applications result in meaningful court-ordered consequences or
punishment for the breaching party.
○ Systemic Tolerance of Breaches: The report highlights that 98% of repeated breaches go unpunished, creating a
"culture of non-compliance" that facilitates long-term parental alienation by allowing a primary caregiver to ignore
court-ordered parenting time with impunity.
○ Impact of Delay: The report identifies that the average wait time for an enforcement hearing often exceeds six
months, a window during which "attachment trauma" and alienating narratives often become permanently
ingrained in the child’s psychology.
Internal Membership Data and Lived-Experience Analysis
In addition to the published P.A.P.A. Family Justice Transparency Report, the insights and projections contained within this brief are
heavily informed by ongoing, internal data collection from our vast membership base specifically for this proposed bill and two others
in which we found similar concerns related to our organizations goal of protecting the best interests of the children and the integrity
of the family court system.
Methodology and Privacy: During the preparation of this submission, P.A.P.A. conducted an internal review of anonymized case
metrics, intake forms, and qualitative feedback from thousands of our Canadian and international members. Due to the highly
sensitive nature of family court proceedings, and to strictly protect the privacy, safety, and anonymity of the families and children
involved, this raw data has not been published as a public study at this time
● Application of Data to Bill C-223: Rather than releasing raw statistics, our leadership and legislative advocacy teams
aggregated this lived-experience data to formulate an evidence-based, expert projection of how the proposed amendments
will practically impact Canadian families. We cross-referenced our members' daily realities with the academic literature cited
below.
● Key Internal Findings Informing Our Position:
○ The Reality of False or Exaggerated Allegations: Our internal case data reveals a concerning pattern where
uncorroborated allegations are frequently used as a litigation strategy to secure unilateral control over children. Bill
C-223’s proposed removal of judicial discretion in assessing "myths and stereotypes" directly contradicts the reality
our members face in family court every day.
○ The Timeline of Alienation: Member data consistently shows that when contact is severed or severely
restricted—often pending lengthy investigations—the psychological damage to the child and the decay of the
parent-child bond happens rapidly. Bill C-223’s mandates risk institutionalizing these delays.
○ The Necessity of Discretion: The overarching consensus from our internal review is that no two family dynamics
are identical. Rigid legislative mandates, such as those proposed in Bill C-223, consistently fail to protect victims of
emotional abuse and coercive control (including alienated children) because they prevent judges from assessing
the nuanced, fact-specific realities of each family.
By synthesizing decades of academic research with the real-world, real-time experiences of our national and global membership,
P.A.P.A. offers this committee a unique, frontline perspective on the profound dangers of removing judicial discretion from the Divorce
Act.
Other References Cited in Submission
● Bauserman, R. (2002). "Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review."
Journal of Family Psychology.
● Department of Justice Canada (2023). "Considerations for Determining Parenting Arrangements: Factors that Influence
Outcomes." Research and Statistics Division.
● Kruk, E. (2012). "The Best Interests of the Child from the Perspective of Fathers." Canadian Institute for Law and the Family.
● Kruk, E. (2021). The Routledge International Handbook of Shared Parenting and Best Interest of the Child.
● Nielsen, L. (2018). "Joint vs. Sole Physical Custody: Outcomes for Children in 60 Studies Independent of Income and
Conflict." Journal of Child Custody.
● Queen’s University Belfast (2023). "Parental Alienation: Perspectives of Legal Professionals." Student Theses / Faculty of
Law Research.
● Warshak, R. A. (2014). "Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report." Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law.
Additional Supporting Evidence (2020–2025)
● Hine, B. (2024/2025). "Prevalence and Impact of Parental Alienating Behaviours." University of West London.
● Poustie, C., et al. (2023). "The Impact of Parental Alienating Behaviours on the Mental Health of Adults Alienated in
Childhood." Journal of Family Violence.
● Fabricius, W. V. (2020). "Equal Parenting Time: The Key to Children's Emotional Security." Arizona State University.
● Braver, S. L., & Votruba, A. M. (2023). "Does Shared Parenting Alleviate or Exacerbate Conflict?" Current Opinion in
Psychology.
● Family Justice Council (2024). "Guidance on Responding to Allegations of Alienating Behaviour."
● Harman, J. J., & Kruk, E. (2024). "Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as a Form of Family Violence and Child
Abuse." American Journal of Family Therapy.
● Sharples, A., et al. (2025). "Scientific Rigor in Parental Alienation Research: A Meta-Appraisal." Partner Abuse Journal.
● Case Law Precedent: K.A.N. v. N.L., 2025 BCSC 2477.
● Case Law Precedent: Chyher v. Al Jaboury, 2025 ONSC 998.
● Warshak, R. A. (2025). "The High Cost of No-Contact Orders in Alienation Cases." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
Summary of Scientific Consensus
The overwhelming body of research from 1985 through 2025 indicates that:
1. Shared Parenting (50/50) is the most significant protective factor against the development of parental alienation.
2. Judicial Discretion is necessary to distinguish between "realistic estrangement" (caused by a parent’s own behavior) and
"pathological alienation" (caused by the other parent’s manipulation).
3. Bill C-223, by removing the "Maximum Contact" principle and the consideration of manipulation, ignores this established
science and risks institutionalizing emotional child abuse under the guise of safety.