C-560-Summary – Canadian Equal Parenting Council

Myth	Fact
"Bill C-560 is focused on the rights of parents as opposed to the current law, which is focused on the best interests of children." "Bill C-560 attempts to impose a “one size fits all” solution, ignoring the uniqueness of each family, which should be left to Judicial discretion." "Imposing a presumption is too radical a change to the existing law and other approaches to enhancing maximum contact for the children to both parents should be pursued instead." "Children benefit from having one primary parent and one home after separation.”	The current adversarial litigation system of settling child-related disputes is focused on parental rights and is irreparably broken, with Courts clogged with bitter, divisive and financially devastating custody litigation between parents fighting over children like property. Previous initiatives such as mandatory mediation, parenting education, collaborative law and costs awards have failed to solve the problem Bill C-560 will foster settlements and reduce litigation due to the requirement that a parent seeking primary parent status must establish that the best interests of the children (which remains the focus under Bill C-560) are substantially enhanced by disproportionate parenting time. Studies have consistently shown that it is the very existence of the custody litigation itself that causes most harm to children, parents and taxpayers Bill C-560 focuses on the right of the child to know and love two primary parents in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Custom solutions are available under Bill C-560 where there is demonstrable merit in light of the unique aspects of the particular family The latest definitive social science understanding is that children need to continue to have two primary parents after separation. See the reference links below. The Canadian public strongly supports this initiative, with support ranging between 70% and 80% of the public measured across all demographics, regions and political affiliations. Judicial decisions under the existing legislation have failed to progress in line with the social sciences understanding of children’s needs and the voice of the Canadian public.

Myth

Fact

"Bill C-560 is focused on the rights of parents as opposed to the current law, which is focused on the best interests of children."

"Bill C-560 attempts to impose a “one size fits all” solution, ignoring the uniqueness of each family, which should be left to Judicial discretion."

"Imposing a presumption is too radical a change to the existing law and other approaches to enhancing maximum contact for the children to both parents should be pursued instead."

"Children benefit from having one primary parent and one home after separation.”

The current adversarial litigation system of settling child-related disputes is focused on parental rights and is irreparably broken, with Courts clogged with bitter, divisive and financially devastating custody litigation between parents fighting over children like property. Previous initiatives such as mandatory mediation, parenting education, collaborative law and costs awards have failed to solve the problem

Bill C-560 will foster settlements and reduce litigation due to the requirement that a parent seeking primary parent status must establish that the best interests of the children (which remains the focus under Bill C-560) are substantially enhanced by disproportionate parenting time. Studies have consistently shown that it is the very existence of the custody litigation itself that causes most harm to children, parents and taxpayers

Bill C-560 focuses on the right of the child to know and love two primary parents in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Custom solutions are available under Bill C-560 where there is demonstrable merit in light of the unique aspects of the particular family

The latest definitive social science understanding is that children need to continue to have two primary parents after separation. See the reference links below.

The Canadian public strongly supports this initiative, with support ranging between 70% and 80% of the public measured across all demographics, regions and political affiliations. Judicial decisions under the existing legislation have failed to progress in line with the social sciences understanding of children’s needs and the voice of the Canadian public.

References