Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:44:51.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Reconstructing” The Patriarchal Nuclear Family: Recent Developments in Child Custody and Access in Canada*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Dawn M. Bourque
Dawn M. Bourque
Affiliation:
Department of History, Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract — Examining recent (1990 to 1993) reported Canadian cases on custody and access, I document a movement toward a re-privatisation of “family” to a traditional patriarchal nuclear form. Patterns of privatisation, readily apparent in economic and social policy are also evident within family law. Custody and access determinations in a separation or post-separation setting represent a moment where these implicit tactics become visible; the result is serious limits placed on the freedom and safety of women and their children. Focus on issues of custodial mothers' mobility, wife abuse and allegations of child physical and/or sexual abuse reveals a propensity on the part of the judiciary to prioritise paternal access to children as a criterion of the “best interests of the child.” Like joint legal custody, which the Canadian courts are still reluctant to impose on unwilling parents, de facto joint custody is occurring under sole custody orders. These tendencies ensure the separated or divorced “family” will be “re-onstructed” and re-privatised along familiar patriarchal lines.

Résumé

En étudiant les plus récentes décisions rendues par les tribunaux canadiens en matière de droits de garde et d'accès (1990 à 1993), l'auteure note un certain retour au caractère privé de la famille, se traduisant par une forme de patriarcat nucléaire. Cette orientation, déjà observable dans la politique sociale et économique, se reflète en droit de lafamille. L'octroi des droits de garde et d'accès dans le cadre de la séparation ou du divorce constitue une occasion où cette tendance subtile se manifeste; il en résulte de sérieuses entraves à la liberté et à la sécurité des femmes et de leurs enfants. Une étude attentive des problèmes ayant trait à la mobilité des mères-gardiennes, à la violence conjugale, à l'inceste et aux mauvais traitements des enfants révèlent une propension de la part des autorités judiciaires à accorder la primauté au droit d'accès du père en tant que critère déterminant du «meilleur intérêt de l'enfant». À l'instar de l'ordonnance de garde partagée, que les tribunaux canadiens sont peu disposés à accorder aux parents non consentants, le droit de garde exclusif n'en constitue pas moins une garde partagée de facto. Ces phénomènes assurent le maintien du caractère privé des relations familiales et la «reconstitution» des families séparées ou divorcées selon le modèle patriarcal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring/printemps 1995 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Arnup, Katherine, “‘Mothers Just Like Others’: Lesbians, Divorce, and Child Custody in Canada” (1989) 3:1C.J.W.L. 18Google Scholar; Boyd, Susan B., “Child Custody Law and the Invisibility of Women's Work” (Winter 1989) 96 Queen's Quarterly 831Google Scholar; Boyd, Susan B., “Child Custody, Ideologies and Employment” (1989) 3:1C.J.W.L. 111Google Scholar; Brockman, Joan & Chunn, Dorothy, eds., Investigating Gender Bias: Law, Courts and the Legal Profession (Toronto: Thompson, 1993)Google Scholar; Martin, Sheilah L. & Mahoney, Kathleen E., eds., Equality and Judicial Neutrality (Calgary: Carswell, 1987)Google Scholar.

2. For discussion of privatising trends in court rulings on support and property law, as well as legal recognition of same-sex relationships, see Boyd, Susan B., “(Re)Placing the State: Family, Law and Oppression” (1994) 9:1C.J.L.S. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For discussion of child support as a privatising tactic, see Bourque, Dawn, Privatization and the ‘Reconstructed Family’ Recent Developments in Child Custody and Child Support in Canada (M.A. Thesis, Carleton University, 1994)Google Scholar.

3. As the title suggests, my use of the word “family” is meant to describe only one specific family form: the heterosexual “nuclear” family. Employing merely “family” to describe this grouping stems from a recognition of dominant discourses which define ‘family’ this way and other forms of “families” as derivations from an assumed norm (for example, single-parent “family,” lesbian “family,” etc.). The 1994 defeat of the Same-Sex Benefits Bill in the Ontario Legislature bears witness to the dominant definition of “family.” My intent is not to accept these definitions uncritically but rather to identify the ways in which one form is naturalised and enforced.

4. It is debatable whether the family ever left the private sphere and hence, whether it can “return.” In terms of many women and their children's economic sustenance, at least sectors of the “family” have moved squarely into the public domain in the form of daycare subsidies, welfare benefits, and the like. The recent push to eliminate or reduce state expenditures in these areas points to a re-privatisation.

5. See, for example, Delorey, Anne Marie, “Joint Legal Custody: A Reversion to Patriarchal Power” (1989) 3:1C.J.W.L. 33Google Scholar; Holmes, Sheila M., “Imposed Joint Legal Custody: Children's Interests or Parental Rights?” (1987) 45:2University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 300Google Scholar; Majury, Diana & Fassel, Mary Lou, Against Women's Interests: An Issue Paper on Joint Custody and Mediation (Ottawa: National Action Committee on the Status of Women, April 1987)Google Scholar. For American perspectives, see Hagen, Jan L., “Proceed with Caution: Advocating Joint Custody” (1987) 26:1Social WorkGoogle Scholar; Fineman, Martha, “Custody Determination at Divorce: The Limits of Social Science Research and the Fallacy of the Liberal Ideology of Equality” (1989) 3:1C.J.W.L. 88Google Scholar; Schulman, Joanne, “Second Thoughts on Joint Custody: Analysis of Legislation and its Impact for Women and Children” (1992) 12:3Golden Gate University Law Review 538Google Scholar. For international perspectives, see Smart, Carol & Sevenhuijsen, Selma, eds., Child Custody and the Politics of Gender (London: Routledge, 1984)Google Scholar.

6. Delorey, ibid. at 39–40.

7. For more discussion on the problems with mediation for women, see, for example, Majury & Fassel, supra note 5; Pickett, Elizabeth, “Familial Ideology, Family Law and Mediation: Law Casts More Than a ‘Shadow’” (1991) 3:1Journal of Human Justice 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richardson, C. James, Court-based Mediation in Four Canadian Cities: Overview of Research Results (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1988)Google Scholar; Shaffer, Martha, “Divorce Mediation: A Feminist Perspective” (1988) 46:1U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 162Google Scholar.

8. Report of the Ontario Courts Inquiry, quoted in Pickett, ibid. at 31.

9. Pickett, supra note 7 at 31–32.

10. I hasten to recognize that although many scholars have noted that most often joint custody refers to a legal status (supra note 3 and accompanying text), Irving and Benjamin advocate joint custody in the form of “shared parenting.” For research on potential hazards of shared parenting see Smart, Carol, “The Legal and Moral Ordering of Child Custody” (1991) 18:4Journal of Law and Society 485CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Pickett, supra note 7 at 32.

12. This research must be qualified with recognition of the potential dangers of relying solely on reported cases as they represent only a tiny segment of litigated custody actions and an even smaller segment of all custody actions that pass through the courts. Private arrangements between parents that never reach lawyers or judges also add to the unrepresentativeness of reported cases. As well, the process for selecting cases to report remains unclear and it is entirely possible that cases are selected because they are atypical or unusual. On the other hand, both lawyers and judges rely extensively on reported cases to guide decisions and advise clients. Also, reported cases do provide a glimpse, albeit somewhat distorted, into the practice and application of legislation as well as any apparent biases held by particular judges.

13. With small exception, all cases indexed under “custody and access” published in Reports of Family Law from 1990 to 1993, were examined. These include original custody orders, original access orders, variations to or enforcement of existing orders, interim orders, appeals and cases involving purely jurisdictional matters. In total there were 125 cases from which to draw information.

14. See supra note 5. See also Freed, Doris Jonas & Walker, Timothy B., “Family Law in the Fifty States: An Overview” (1990) 24:3Family Law Quarterly 309Google Scholar.

15. Canada, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Family Law Committee, Custody and Access: Public Discussion Paper (Ottawa: Department of Justice, March 1993)Google Scholar. The Committee originally began with a mandate to review child support and has since evolved into a review of both support and custody. See also: Canada, Federal/Provincial/ Territorial Family Law Committee, Financial Implications of Child Support Guidelines: Executive Summary (Ottawa: Department of Justice, May 1992)Google Scholar. While the issues of custody and support are intimately tied, this discussion deals only with child custody and access. For a detailed discussion of developments in custody, support, and the work of the Family Law Committee, see Bourque, supra note 2.

16. The notable exception to this trend is in M.(B.P.) v. (M.(B.L.D.E.) (1992), 42 R.F.L. (3d) 349 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1993), 48 R.F.L. (3d) 232 at 360. Abella J.A. affirmed: “[t]he biological link cannot be permitted to trump the child's welfare and best interests.” See, also, Mackay v. Sambles (1991), 36 R.F.L. (3d) 383 (N.B.Q.B.) at 389: The father had no relationship with the child and only commenced claims for access at the demands of his parents. Guerette J. found the father's interest in the child insincere and denied him access for an unspecified period or until such time as “the child will start asking serious questions about her father. At that time the mother should put aside her feelings for the applicant and allow the child a chance to reach out to her father.”

17. Carter v. Brooks (1990), 30 R.F.L. (3d) 53 (Ont. C.A.).

18. Ibid. at 58.

19. Ibid. at 66 [emphasis added].

20. Levesque v. Lapointe (1993), 44 R.F.L. (3d) 316 (B.C.C.A.).

21. Ibid. at 323.

22. Ibid. at 318.

23. Ibid. at 328.

24. Fasan v. Fasan (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d) 121 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).

25. Ibid. at 127.

26. Ibid. at 133.

27. Out of the 125 cases examined, 32 involved issues of mobility. The results are roughly evenly split between denying and allowing a mother's move. See Martindale v. Martindale (1990), 30 R.F.L. (3d) 229 (Man.C.A.); Staranowicz v. Staranowicz (1990), 30 R.F.L. (3d) 185 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Bagnell v. Bagnell (1991), 33 R.F.L. (3d) 165 (N.S. Fam. Ct.); Oldfield v. Oldfield (1991), 33 R.F.L. (3d) 235 (Ont. Ct.) )(Gen. Div.); Burk v. Burk (1991), 34 R.F.L. (3d) 27 (Ont. U.F.C.); Leenders v. Fritz (1991), 34 R.F.L. (3d) 310 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Rempel v. Reynolds (1991), 34 R.F.L. (3d) 82 (Sask.Q.B.): Bajzat v. Bajzat (1991), 35 R.F.L. (3d) 59 (Ont. Div. Ct.); Kingwell v. Kingwell (1991), 35 R.F.L. (3d) 373 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Evanoff v. Evanoff (1991), 37 R.F.L. (3d) 393 (Sask. C.A.); Williams v. Williams (1991), 38 R.F.L. (3d) 100 (N.W.T.S.C); de Medeiros v. de Medeiros (1992), 39 R.F.L. (3d) 274 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Koffler v. Hruby (1992), 40 R.F.L. (3d) 369 (Alta.Q.B.); MacInnis v. MacInnis, (1992) 40 R.F.L. (3d) 345 (Ont.U.F.C); M.(C.) v. M.(G.) (1992), 40 R.F.L. (3d) 1 (Ont. U.F.C.); Vielle v. Vielle (1992), 41 R.F.L. (3d), 316 (Alta. Prov. Ct.); Welton v. Welton (1992), 42 R.F.L. (3d) 233 (Alta.C.A.); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (1992), 42 R.F.L. (3d) 264 (B.C.S.C); Gillespie v. Gillespie (1992), 43 R.F.L. (3d) 84 (Ont.C.A.); James v. James (1992), 43 R.F. L. (3d) 189 (B.C.S.C); Lueck v. Green (1993), 44 R.F.L. (3d) 206 (Y.T.C.A.); Szoke-Sieswerda v. Sieswerda (1992), 44 R.F.L. (3d) 152 (Alta. Q.B.); Brewer v. MacIntosh (1993), 45 R.F.L. (3d) 437 (N.B.Q.B.); Kingwell v. Kingwell (1993), 45 R.F.L. (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.). Only one of these cases raised the issue of a custodial father's proposed move. See Hines v. Hines, (1992) 40 R.F.L. (3d) 274 (N.S.T.D.). Cases involving both relocation and allegations of abuse will be discussed in proceeding text.

28. See James G. McLeod, “Annotation” in Carter v. Brooks, supra note 17 at 55.

29. Other issues at appeal related to costs, orders for maintenance, and division of matrimonial property. Although related, the decision on access can be fairly discussed separately. See Young v. Young (1993), 49 R.F.L. (3d) 117 (S.C.C.).

30. Ibid. at 155.

31. Ibid. at 156.

32. Ibid. at 168.

33. Ibid. at 212.

34. Ibid. at 170.

35. Ibid. at 223.

36. Studies have shown that while popular perceptions assume access problems emanate from obstruction by custodial mothers, the reality is the reverse. See Department of Justice, Evaluation of the Divorce Act, Phase I: Collection of Baseline Data by Richardson, C. James (Ottawa: Bureau of Review, June 1987) at 99–101Google Scholar: In 18.4% of cases examined, the father did not exercise his access rights or obligations. In 43% of cases, the father saw the children less frequently than the court ordered. See also Perry, Debra, Access to Children Following Parental Relationship Breakdown in Alberta (Calgary: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 1992)Google Scholar.

37. See Munro, Karen M., “The Inapplicability of Rights Analysis in Post-Divorce Child Custody Decision Making” (1992) 30 Alberta Law Review 852Google Scholar.

38. Folberg, Jay, “Joint Custody” in Abella, Rosalie S. & L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire, eds., Family Law: Dimensions of Justice: Selected Papers Presented at the Judicial Conference on Family Law (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983) at 185Google Scholar.

39. Supra note 29 at 185.

40. Rezansoff v. Rezansoff (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d),443 (Man. Q.B.).

41. Ibid. at 444 [emphasis added].

42. For research pertaining to the relationship between wife abuse and custody determinations, see Saunders, Daniel G., “Child Custody Decisions in Families Experiencing Woman Abuse” (J1994) 39:1Social Work 51Google ScholarPubMed; Clark, Lorenne M. G., “Wife Battery and Determinations of Custody and Access: A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings” (1990) 22:3Ottawa Law Review 691Google Scholar.

43. Savidant v. MacLeod (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d) 266 (P.E.I.S.C).

44. Ibid. at 269 [emphasis added].

45. Staranowicz v. Staranowicz, supra note 27.

46. Ibid. at 189.

47. Ibid. at 191.

48. Ibid. at 188. Conversely, in Hiscocks v. Marshman, the mother had received sole custody of the child in California. During an access visit with the father in Ontario, the 13-year old girl expressed wishes to remain with the father. The father then petitioned the Ontario court for a variation to the custody order. The court respected the child's wishes and granted the father the variation. No mention was made of any potential manipulation on the part of the father. See Hiscocks v. Marshman (1991), 34 R.F.L. (3d) 12 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).

49. Out of the 125 cases, 28 cases involved allegations of child sexual and/or physical abuse. In 26 of those cases, mothers accused fathers of abuse. Out of those 26, 18 were deemed groundless. For cases not listed in text, see Re B. (1991) 31 R.F.L. (3d) 219 (Ont. Prov. Div.); L. v. L., (1990) 31 R.F.L. (3d) 320 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Burk v. Burk, (1991) 34 R.F.L. (3d) 27 (Ont. U.F.C.); Nickerson v. Nickerson, (1991) 34 R.F.L. (3d) 341 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Kingwell v. Kingwell, (1991) 35 R.F.L. (3d) 373 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); S.(B.A.) v. S.(M.S.), (1991) 35 R.F.L. (3d) 400 (Ont. C.A); M.(C.) v. M.(G.), (1992) 40 R.F.L. (3d) 1 (Ont. U.F.C.); Plesh v. Plesh, (1992) 41 R.F.L. (3d) 102 (Man.Q.B.); Strobridge v. Strobridge, (1992) 42 R.F.L. (3d) 154 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Gillespie v. Gillespie, (1992) 43 R.F.L. (3d) 84 (Ont.C.A.); Larocque v. McComb, (1992) 43 R.F.L. (3d) 185 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); R. v. Adams, (1993) 44 R.F.L. (3d) 109 (Ont. C.A.); S.(P.I.) v. 5. (M.), (1993) 44 R.F.L. (3d) 210 (B.C.C.A.); Hodgins v. Hodgins, (1993) 45 R.F.L. (3d) 75 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Kingwell v. Kingwell, (1993) 45 R.F.L. (3d) 242 (Ont. C.A.); B. (L.A.) v. B. (K.L.) (1993), 46 R.F.L. (3d) 316 (B.C.S.C). There were nine cases involving wife abuse, six of which overlap with child abuse allegations. In cases involving only wife abuse, the abuse was substantiated either via criminal convictions or grounds for divorce.

50. Brigante v. Brigante (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d) 299 (Ont. U.F.C.).

51. Ibid. at 301–02.

52. Ibid. at 304.

53. Ibid. at 306.

54. Supra note 17.

55. Colley v. Colley (1991), 31 R.F.L. (3d) 281 (Ont. U.F.C.).

56. Ibid. at 284.

57. See, for example, Wallerstein, Judith S. & Kelly, Joan Berlin, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (New York: Basic Books, 1980)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Judith S. & Blakeslee, Sandra, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade after Divorce (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1989)Google Scholar. Conversely, for a study finding similar levels of problem incidents in children of both single-parent and two-parent families, see Furstenberg, Frank, Morgan, Philip & Allison, Paul, “Paternal Participation and Children's Weil-Being After Marital Dissolution” (1988) 25:3American Sociology Review 485Google Scholar.

58. See Drakich, Janice, “In Search of the Better Parent: The Social Construction of Ideologies of Fatherhood” (1989) 3:1C.J.W.L. 69Google Scholar; Fineman, Martha, The Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

59. See, for example, Rosgrove, Bruce, “I Am A Father” (1993) 3 Everyman: Canadian Men's Journal 18Google Scholar. See, also, Crean, Susan, In the Name of the Fathers: The Story Behind Child Custody (Toronto: Amanita, 1988)Google Scholar; Carol Smart, “Power and the Politics of Custody” in Smart and Sevenhuijsen, eds., supra note 5 at 10–11.

60. Bartesko v. Bartesko (1990), 31 R.F.L. (3d) 213 (B.C.C.A.).

61. Ibid. at 215.

62. Ibid. at 216.

63. Ibid. at 216.

64. See von Hauff, Donna, “Framing a Father Fails in Court” (4 March 1991) Alberta Reports 41Google Scholar.

65. See, Green, Arthur M., “True and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Child Custody Disputes” (1986) 25:4Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 449CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed: 36% of allegations are untrue. See also Brant, R. and Sink, F., “Dilemmas in Court-ordered Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Charges During Custody and Visitation” (Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Toronto, October, 1984)Google Scholar: “[T]he non-custodial parent accused the custodial parent of brainwashing the child to make a false allegation of sexual abuse in three of four cases.”

66. Green, ibid. at 451–52 [emphasis added].

67. Jessica Pearson's research demonstrates that allegations deemed to be false occur no more frequently in the general population than in the context of custody and access disputes. Moreover, her studies indicate that allegations of abuse made by mothers against fathers represented only half the cases. Just as frequent were allegations against a step-parent, extended relative, etc., indicating that the “red flag” may indeed be more of a “red herring.” Pearson, Jessica, “Ten Myths About Family Law” (1993) 27:2Family Law Quarterly 279Google Scholar. See, also, Bala, Nicholas & Anweiler, Jane, “Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in a Parental Custody Dispute: Smokescreen or Fire?” (1987) 2 Canadian Family Law Quarterly 343Google Scholar; Faun, Meredith Sherman, “Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Disputes: Getting to the Truth of the Matter” (1991) 25:2Family Law Quarterly 192Google Scholar.

68. Von Hauff, supra note 64 at 41 [emphasis added].

69. P.(D.P) v. P.(L.E.) (1992), 39 R.F.L. (3d) 302 (Sask. C.A.).

70. Ibid. at 304.

71. H. v. J. (1991), 34 R.F.L. (3d) 361 (Sask. Q.B.).

72. Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2d Supp.), c. 3 at s. 16(10).

73. Supra note 71 at 366.

74. Carlson v. Carlson (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d) 383 (B.C.C.A.).

75. Ibid. at 387.

76. Ibid. at 388.

77. Ibid. at 385.

78. Ibid. at 388.

79. Ibid. at 392.

80. Cases involving allegations made by a father against a mother or a mother's relative have resulted in a change from maternal to paternal custody. See H.(E.A.) v. H.(R.F.) (1991), 37 R.F.L. (3d) 446 (N.S. Fam. Ct.): Alleged abuse of daughter by mother's brother; and Millar v. Millar (1992), 41 R.F.L. (3d) 193 (Alta. C.A.): Alleged abuse of daughter by mother's son and mother (decision reversed and custody to mother returned on appeal).

81. Statistical research has recently shown that 20% of all Canadian “families” are headed by single women. The remaining 80% also include family regroupings (for example separated/divorced partners), gay and lesbian couples, and same-sex people living together without any sexual and/or romantic tie. See Lindsay, Colin, Lone-Parent Families in Canada (Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, 1992) at 10 [draft]Google Scholar.