An Open Invitation from the Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC)By Maureen Geddes 

“SPLIT DECISIONS  After two decades of favouring joint custody of children, divorce courts are turning against an arrangement that can make ugly conflicts worse” reads the headline in a major Canadian newspaper [The Globe and Mail, July 29, 2006, page F1].

In the 10% of custody cases that make it to family court, according to the Globe and Mail report, decisions in recent years have tended to favour joint custody and shared parenting arrangements.  Until the past year, that is.  In high-conflict cases where shared parenting seems to increase litigation and lead to increasing hostilities between the parents, the courts are turning back the clock to sole custody.

While I understand their frustration with the system, the return to sole custody does not solve the problem.  It merely moves it out of the courtroom and out of the public eye.  And we can continue to remain blind to the deeper source of the problem: the underlying bias of the system – when push comes to shove - in favour of the mother as primary parent and the father as primary breadwinner. 

That underlying bias may have worked for most people when it fit the most common external demographic.  Those days are long gone.  Canada has wide variety of income levels and parenting combinations, and Dad as the sole income earner and Mom as full-time stay-at-home parent are now the minority of families.  We have yet to overhaul our family law systems to reflect this new reality.  Or to examine the parenting philosophies that guide it.

As acknowledged in the article, two of our federal parties have taken some action to attempt to address the problem.  The former federal Liberal government had a bill that favoured shared parenting, but did not mandate joint custody and 50-50 access arrangements as the new norm.  It died on the order paper.  The governing Conservative Party included joint custody in their election platform, but has no stated plans to address it in their current mandate.

A July 31, 2006 search using the New Democratic Party website search engine on each of: equal parenting, shared parenting, joint custody, custody, and parenting all yielded no results.  There may be policy resolutions in front of this party at present, or other parties.  To inform the CEPC of political policy developments, click here: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .

The legislative changes in this area of family law have been slow.  What has been happening on the activist front?

In March of 2002, David Shackleton, then editor and publisher of Everyman: A Men’s Journal, arranged what became a series of conference calls with like-minded leaders across the country to promote equal and shared parenting.  These conversations ultimately culminated in the incorporation of CEPC January 12, 2004, as a federal not-for-profit corporation.  The history of the organizations since then is summarized on their website, www.canadianepc.com, and excerpted here:

What has happened since incorporation?  The CEPC developed a website, and sent out invitations for organizations to join in.  Without funding and with limited response, not much has happened since.  As CEPC co-president Bob McGuire stated “We are holding the energy for equal parenting”.

Going Forward

The issues around parenting of children in more than one home are complex, and made all the more so by a legal system designed for a demographic that hardly exists today.  At the moment, as even those who profit from the current adversarial system would agree, a basic legal requirement for mandatory mediation where parties cannot agree on a shared parenting plan would be an improvement.

Legal change is but one avenue to improve the lives of children and parents who live in separate homes.  As co-president with Bob for this organization, I can say we both hope to inspire more action going forward.  Our letter of invitation to get involved with CEPC is provided below.  We welcome your thoughts and comments.