Keeping Children Safe Act

Bill C-223, the Keeping Children Safe Act, would amend the federal Divorce Act to change how family violence and coercive control are handled in divorce and custody cases. Lawyers acting for a spouse in a divorce would be required to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a risk of family violence exists, and if so, to help implement a safety plan and inform the client of available support services. Lawyers would no longer be required to push for reconciliation or dispute resolution in cases where family violence is a concern.

The bill changes what courts can and cannot consider when deciding what is in a child's best interests. Judges would be barred from considering unproven claims that one parent has manipulated a child into resisting contact with the other parent, except in narrow circumstances tied to proven family violence. Courts would also be prohibited from assuming that shared parenting time or continued contact with both parents is automatically best for the child, and would be barred from drawing certain conclusions about family violence based on common misconceptions—for example, assuming abuse has stopped just because the couple separated, or doubting a violence complaint simply because it was reported late, because charges were dropped, or because the victim continued living with the abuser. A parent's decision to leave with the children for a shelter or another province, with or without notice, would not by itself count against them.

The bill also changes the rules for relocation disputes: if a parent seeking to move with a child already has the child most of the time, the move would generally be presumed allowed unless the other parent proves it's not in the child's interest and that the child should live mainly with them instead. New rules would let courts, under specific safeguards, gather a child's views directly through writing or an in-camera interview with an amicus curiae present, when this serves the child's best interests. Courts would also be barred from ordering "reunification therapy" for an estranged child without both parents' consent, or from cutting a child's time with a parent they're close to simply to improve the relationship with the other parent.

Finally, the bill includes transition rules: cases already underway when the law takes effect would continue under the old rules, but past decisions based on unproven "parental alienation" claims could be revisited as a "change in circumstances" allowing a new custody order to be sought.

This bill amends the Divorce Act to impose new duties on legal advisers regarding family violence risk assessment, to restrict what courts may infer or consider when weighing family violence and parental alienation claims, to let courts obtain evidence directly from a child under specified conditions, and to shift the burden of proof in relocation disputes.

• Duties on legal advisers — lawyers acting for a spouse in a divorce must assess whether there are "reasonable grounds to believe" a risk of family violence exists, and if so, must implement an "appropriate plan," ensure a safety plan is in place, and inform the spouse of known support services; no penalty for non-compliance is specified in the text.
• Court discretion to question children directly — a court "may" obtain information or evidence from a child in writing or through an in-camera interview with an amicus curiae present, if it finds this serves the child's best interests, both spouses agree, and there is no other appropriate way to obtain it; what counts as "no other appropriate way" is left to the court's judgment.
• Restrictions on judicial inferences — courts are barred from inferring that family violence has ceased or that reports of it were unreliable based solely on listed grounds (e.g., continued cohabitation, absence of visible injuries, late disclosure, no criminal charges laid); courts also cannot presume that equal parenting time or ongoing contact with each spouse is automatically in a child's best interests.
• Limits on alienation allegations — courts cannot consider allegations that a spouse deliberately manipulated a child into estrangement from the other spouse, except where the accused spouse has themselves engaged in family violence and the evidence is relevant to the child's best interests.
• Bar on reunification therapy orders — courts are prohibited from ordering a child into "reunification therapy" or letting one spouse consent to it without the other's agreement; "reunification therapy" is defined broadly to include any intervention meant to repair an estranged parent-child relationship.
• Burden of proof in relocation cases — the spouse opposing a child's relocation must prove both that relocation is not in the child's best interests and that the child should reside primarily with them, if the relocating spouse already has majority care; courts must also presume the relocating parent will move regardless of the outcome.
• Retroactive effect — decisions made before the law takes effect that relied on now-barred alienation reasoning are deemed a "change in circumstances," which under existing law allows a party to apply to have a parenting order varied.