Search

This paper contributes to international feminist debates on shared parenting and family violence via reforms to Canada's Divorce Act, in force since 2021. Looking backwards, it reviews parliamentary debates and early judicial discussions. The documentary review reads the reforms as an unstable compromise between calls from feminist voices and experts on family violence and from groups representing fathers. Family violence is now defined broadly and declared relevant to children's welfare. But language in the statute may undermine its seriousness. Exposing the tensions underlying these reforms is useful for Canadian participants in family justice and for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers elsewhere, exemplifying the promise and perils of reform in this area. Looking ahead, the paper offers recommendations to higher courts. Appellate judges should read rules on contact with both parents and parental cooperation in the light of the new recognition of family violence, taking the latter as an overarching objective of the statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction notice is presented for an article " Compromise on Parenting and Family Violence? Reforms to Canada's Divorce Act" which was published in the previous issue of the periodical.

This paper contributes to feminist debates on cohabitation by studying judicial discourse after legal reform. It examines how Canadian judges speak about cohabitation and decide whether cohabitants qualify as “spouses” for the purposes of property sharing. Judges assess cohabitants against an ideal of companionate marriage with gendered and class overtones. A contrasting tendency is to disavow moral judgments by declaring openness to a diversity of relationships. It seems difficult to operationalize cohabitation as a relationship form distinct from marriage. Indeed, the cases undermine assertions that reform makes married couples and cohabitants equal. Efforts to “modernize” family law appear to give new life to traditional ideals of the good marriage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the proper balance between legislative and judicial innovation and between formal and functional family recognition once legislatures have addressed gay men's and lesbians' families? In the civil-law jurisdiction of Quebec, legislative reforms allow two women to register as a child's mothers. But judges have recognized a second mother 'in fact' by orders sharing custody where the parties had not used the new legislative channels. Such judicial creativity is reconcilable with the civil law and comparative scholars should flag it as a valuable resource. But it risks undermining legislative choices about family recognition. Perhaps the option to give a child a second mother includes the choice for a lesbian birth mother not to do so. Once two women become thinkable as spouses and mothers, judges risk inappropriately pressing a rich range of queer kinship possibilities into standard models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]