Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T03:31:59.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Child Custody Determinations in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Paul Millar  and
Sheldon Goldenberg
Paul Millar
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, The University of Calgary
Sheldon Goldenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, The University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many earlier studies of Canadian child custody determinations have been written from ideological and feminist viewpoints. This study attempts to look at this subject from an empirical and sociological stance, within its historical context. Several related issues are considered, including the central issue of sexism, and the effects of legislation and case law on these determinations. Models of how custody cases settled by trial affect those negotiated outside the courtroom are explored. This study analyzes decades of Canadian child custody orders and other evidence to shed light on trends in judicial decision making and their causes.

Résumé

Beaucoup d'études antérieures sur les décisions canadiennes concernant la garde des enfants ont été écrites à partir de points de vue idéologiques et féministes. La présente étude tente d'examiner ce sujet à partir d'une approche empirique et sociologique, dans son contexte historique. Plusieurs questions connexes sont abordées, y compris la question centrale du sexisme et les effets de la législation et de la jurisprudence sur ces décisions. Les auteurs explorent des modèles tendant à établir l'influence des décisions judiciaires en matière de garde d'enfants sur les ententes négociées hors cour. Ils analysent des décennies d'ordonnances canadiennes de garde d'enfants ainsi que divers autres éléments de preuve afin d'éclairer les tendances jurisprudentielles observées et leurs causes.

Type
Discussions/Débats
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Fall/automne 1998 , pp. 209 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1998

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. MacDonald, James C. “Historical Perspective of Custody and Access Disputes: A Lawyer's View in Custody Disputes: Evaluation and Intervention” in Parry, Ruth S. et al. , eds. (Toronto: Lexington, 1986) 10.Google Scholar

2. Goldstein, Jacob & Fenster, C. Abraham, “Anglo-American Criteria for Resolving Child Custody Disputes from the Eighteenth Century to the Present: Reflections on the Role of Socio-Cultural Change” (1994) 19:1Journal of Family History 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. 2&3 Victoria, 1839, c. 54 at 179–80.

4. Goldstein & Fenster, supra note 2 at 40.

5. Crean, Susan, In the Name of the Fathers (Toronto: Amanita, 1988) at 23.Google Scholar

6. Ibid. at 21.

7. Pulkingham, Jane, “Private Troubles, Private Solutions” (1994) 9:2C.J.L.S. 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Abernath, Thomas J. & Arcus, Margaret E., “The Law and Divorce in Canada” (1977) 26:4Family Coordinator 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, (2d supp.) c. 3, s. 16(10).

10. Department of Justice, Evaluation of the Divorce Act, Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (Canada: Bureau of Review, 1990).Google Scholar

11. Turcotte, Pierre & Bélanger, Alain, “Moving In Together: The Formation of First Common-Law Unions” (1997) winter, Canadian Social Trends 7 at 9Google Scholar, Statistics Canada Cat. No. 11–008-XPE.

12. McBean, Jean, “The Myth of Maternal Preference in Child Custody Cases” in Mahoney, Kathleen E. & Martin, Sheilah L., eds., Equality and Judicial Neutrality (Toronto: Carswell, 1987) 188.Google Scholar

13. Ibid. at 189.

14. Boyd, Susan, “Some Postmodernist Challenges to Feminist Analyses of Law, Family and State: Ideology and Discourse in Child Custody” (1991) 10:1Law Can. J. Fam. L. 87.Google Scholar

15. Crean, supra note 5 at 37.

16. Department of Justice, supra note 10 at 104–05, Tables 4.21 & 4.23.

17. Ibid. at 44.

18. Mnookin, Robert H. & Kornhauser, Lewis, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce” (1979) 88:5Yale Law Journal 950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Jacob, Herbert, “The Elusive Shadow of the Law” (1992) 26:3Law and Society Review 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Crean, supra note 5 at 107.

21. Ibid. at 46.

22. Ibid. at 96.

23. Department of Justice, supra note 10 at 49.

24. Ibid. at 54.

25. Ibid. at 82.

26. A mother is a woman living with children under the age of 16 years.

27. Statistics Canada, Lone-Parent Families in Canada, Catalogue No. 89–522E, p. 17

28. Statistics Canada, The Statistics Canada Work Accounts System, Catalogue no. 89–549-XPE at 23.

29. A sample of 869 cases from 15 court districts in Canada in 1991 found that, in most cases, the standard of living for both parties declined following a separation. See Justice Canada, An Overview of the Research Program to Develop a Canadian Child Support Program by Finnie, , Ross, , Carolina Giliberti & Daniel Stripinis (1995) at 4.Google Scholar

30. Warshak, Richard A., “How Children Fare in Father-Custody Homes” (1993) 15:3Family Advocate.38.Google Scholar See also Santrock, John W. & Warshak, R. A., “Father Custody and Social Development in Boys and Girls” (1979) 35:4Journal of Social Issues 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Parke, Ross D., Fathers Cambridage, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) at 95.Google Scholar

32. Maccoby, Eleanor E. & Jacklin, Carol N., The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar as cited by Skolnick, Arlene S., The Intimate Environment: Exploring Marriage and the Family New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996) at 197.Google Scholar

33. Ambert, Anne-Marie, “Longitudinal Changes in Children's Behavior Toward Custodial Parents” (1984) 46:2Journal of Marriage and the Family 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Most female lone parents are single due to separation or divorce. The rest are split roughly between never-married or widowed mothers, with widows more likely to have older children. See Ram, Bali, New Trends in the Family (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1990) at 23.Google Scholar

35. Statistics Canada, Crowing Up in Canada: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Catalogue No. 89–550-MPE, no. 1, November 1996 at 89.

36. Skolnick, supra note 31 at 198.

37. Although most sections of the Charter were proclaimed on 15 October 1985, it is assumed that this legislation had been exerting a normative influence since its introduction in 1982.

38. Bahr, Stephen J. et al. “Trends in Child Custody Awards: Has the Removal of Maternal Preference Made a Difference?” (1994) 28:2Family Law Quarterly 247.Google Scholar

39. Morton, Frederick Lee (Ted), ed., Law, Politics and the Judicial Process in Canada, 2d ed., (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1992) at 80.Google Scholar

40. Department of Justice, supra note 10 at 116, Table 4.26.

41. Since at least 1996, the seminars are no longer offered. Instead, the Canadian Judicial Institute has offered Social Context Education for the Judiciary.

42. Mahoney & Martin, eds., supra note 12.

43. See, e.g., “The Means of Correct Training” in Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (Toronto: Random House, 1975) [trans. 1977] 170.Google Scholar