Get the Details Here: CEPC’s Response to CBA Statement Opposing Bill C-560, Claim #4

CEPC Issued a summary rebuttal to the CBA Statement of Opposition to the popular Equal Parenting Bill C-560. In the summary, there were links to the details. This post covers CBA Claim #4.

CBA Claim #4:

“This clearly makes children’s interests a very low priority, which is contradictory to the stated goals of Canadian family laws as well as Canada’s obligations under the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

CEPC Response:

According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention ) there are 15 different Hague Conventions, one of which, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Convention_on_the_Civil_Aspects_of_International_Child_Abduction ) applies to children of Divorce and separation. The Convention does not alter any substantive rights, but provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member country to another. In other words, the Hague Convention has little to do with Canada’s Divorce Act, other than to help Canada enforce judgments made under the Divorce Act. Nothing in Bill C-560 contradicts Canada’s obligations under the Hague Convention.

According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child ) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ( http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx ) sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated. Nothing in Bill C-560 contradicts Canada’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; in fact, Bill C-560 is explicitly supported by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under the right to have a relationship with both parents.

Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Convention states: “1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.” Bill C-560 better fulfills Canada’s obligation to share common responsibilities and concerns for the best interests of the child than the current de facto sole custody regime.

Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Convention states: “States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.” Bill C-560 enhances Canada’s capabilities to protect the child(ren)’s right not to be separate from his or her parents, except if the separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.”

Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Convention states: “States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.” Bill C-560 better executes Canada’s responsibility to provide protection of the child(ren)’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents, through provision of a rebuttable presumption of Equal Parenting.

We have reviewed all of the Hague Conventions, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Bill C-560. We conclude that Bill C-560 is not only consistent with the relevant Articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that it provides an even higher standard of protection of the child(ren)’s rights to both parents than is required by the Convention.

The CBA Statement not only confuses the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it does not appear to understand Canada’s responsibilities under either agreement. The CBA press release’s misstatements regarding Bill C-560 and Canada’s international obligations are so significant that we can only conclude that they are scare tactics intended to avoid the real issue, which is the overwhelmingly poor job done in Canada today protecting children’s rights. The CBA’s members bear responsibility for the excess conflict in the court system, as well as the poor outcomes for children resulting from the chaos in the Courts.