Putting Child Safety at the Centre: Bill C‑223 and the Next Phase of Divorce Act Reform

Introduction

Since the last amendments to the Divorce Act came into effect in March 2021, family law in Canada has continued to evolve in response to family violence.[1] Those amendments expanded the definition of family violence, addressed its impact on children, and updated relocation provisions, including the ability to waive notice in cases of violence. Nearly five years later, Bill C-223 (Keeping Children Safe Act) builds on these reforms by strengthening protections for children and survivors, emphasizing risk assessment, child‑focused decision‑making, and a trauma‑informed approach in family law proceedings.

Before turning to the substance of the proposed reforms, it is important to note that Bill C-223 is a Private Member’s Bill, not a government bill. As such, it proceeds under the Private Members’ Business process and does not carry the institutional sponsorship of the Government of Canada. This distinction is significant because Private members’ bills do not carry the same likelihood of passage as government bills, as they typically proceed only where there is cross-party support or subsequent government endorsement. Moreover, even if enacted, courts generally accord less interpretive weight to private members’ bills than to government legislation, which more directly reflects government policy. With that said, Bill C-223 may still be relevant as evidence of parliamentary concern or emerging legislative debate, rather than as an expression of binding legislative intent.

Bill C-223 introduces a substantial set of proposed amendments that reflect evolving understandings of family violence, children’s rights and family justice. While the Bill is still at the early stage (second reading as of October 2025), if passed, it would reshape how lawyers, courts and families navigate divorce-related parenting, with a stronger emphasis on safety, child agency and nuanced understanding of abuse.

The Bill aims to amend the Divorce Act to prioritize the safety, dignity and well-being of children and survivors of family violence. It is intended to give children a greater voice in divorce proceedings, provide better recognition of coercive control within family dynamics, and counter outdated assumptions about parental alienation.

Stated Goals of Bill C-223

As outlined in the First Reading summary, the Bill’s stated goals include:

• Legal advisers assessing and responding to risk of family violence;
• Courts more accurately assessing the impact of coercive control on parent-child relationships;
• Enabling courts to obtain children’s views (in writing or interview) under certain conditions; and,
• Preventing courts from relying on myths or stereotypes about family violence (for example: “violence ends when separation starts”).

Key Features of Bill-C223

Bill C‑223 proposes several notable changes to the Divorce Act that reflect these goals, which we explain further below, including implications for practitioners, practical considerations for parenting arrangements, and the potential impact on how courts will assess family violence and child well-being.

1. Risk Assessment and Safety Planning by Legal Advisers

Bill C‑223 proposes that lawyers representing a spouse in divorce proceedings have a duty to assess the risk of family violence and implement appropriate safety measures. This aims to ensure that potential harm to children and survivors is identified early and addressed proactively. The Preamble emphasized that the primary focus of family law must be to promote the safety, dignity and well-being of all family members, particularly children and survivors of family violence. This requirement enhances child safety and well-being in family law matters.

As family practitioners know, cases involving family conflict and intimate-partner violence can escalate rapidly. Recent events underscore this risk: in October 2025, just days prior to the Bill’s second reading, a tragic incident occurred in Brampton, Ontario, which involved the fatal shooting of a mother and the alleged abduction of her 1-year-old child. Peel police reported a four percent increase in family and intimate-partner violence calls, noting that “every hour we respond to two family and intimate partner violence calls.”[2]

Lawyers often see early red flags: escalating tension, threatening conduct, missed exchanges, or controlling behaviour. Taking swift, coordinated action can make all the difference in protecting a child or spouse at risk, highlighting the indispensable role lawyers play in maintaining family safety, whether through urgent measures such as seeking a restraining order or other immediate relief. Tools like the HELP Toolkit, developed by the Department of Justice Canada, provide a structured, trauma-informed approach to assessing risk and ensuring clients have a safety plan before taking further steps. To implement this goal, practitioners may need to update intake procedures, integrate formal family violence screening tools into daily practice, and provide clients with tailored safety planning advice. Proper documentation of all risk assessment steps will also become increasingly important.

2. Recognition of Coercive Control:

Bill C‑223 emphasizes that courts must consider non-physical forms of family violence, including coercive control, when dealing with parenting and decision-making matters. This acknowledges that abuse is not limited to visible physical acts between parties and that psychological, emotional, and financial control can significantly impact children and survivors.

The 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act introduced a formal definition of “family violence” for the first time, which includes:

(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement (excluding reasonable self-defence)

(b) sexual abuse;

(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;

(d) harassment, including stalking;

(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;

(f) psychological abuse;

(g) financial abuse;

(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property;

(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property;

(j) direct or indirect exposure of children to any of the above.[3]

Importantly, the amendments recognized coercive control as a distinct form of family violence. Coercive control is considered to be a serious form of abuse involving a pattern of behaviours used to dominate and control a person.[4] It is an extremely dangerous form of IPV that can put victims and exposed children at high risk of both psychological and physical harm.

For practitioners, this means gathering comprehensive evidence of coercive control, such as communications, financial records, and expert reports from psychologists or social workers. Accurately understanding and documenting these dynamics will be critical in both negotiations and litigation, ensuring that parenting decisions reflect the full scope and impact of family violence. Applying a trauma-informed approach can also help courts interpret patterns of control and abuse, recognizing the subtle ways coercive behaviour affects both children and survivors.

It is also important to recognize that perpetrators of coercive control may use the family law process to continue controlling or harassing their ex-partner, a form of litigation abuse or legal bullying. This can include representing themselves to exert control, contacting multiple lawyers to limit the victim’s options, stalling or refusing to provide court documents or financial disclosure, repeatedly changing legal counsel, initiating frivolous motions, providing false information, harassing the ex-partner at or before court, filing unmeritorious complaints, refusing to follow court orders, or offering deals tied to testimony in criminal proceedings.[5] Because coercive controlling behavior is more likely than other forms of intimate partner violence to persist and escalate after separation, careful documentation and a trauma-informed perspective are critical to protecting both children and survivors.

3. Children’s Voice in Proceedings

The Bill amends the parenting-time and custody provisions in the Divorce Act, adding a new mechanism (section 16(1.1)) that permits a court to obtain information or evidence from the child directly in writing or by means of an interview with the child, which would be in camera (i.e. private) and conducted in the presence of an independent “amicus curiae” (a “friend of the court,” to represent or protect the child’s interests), if the following relevant conditions are met:

(a) it is in the best interests of the child to provide the information or evidence;

(b) both spouses agree; and

(c) the court is of the opinion that the safety and privacy of the child would not be compromised and there is no other appropriate way to obtain the information.[6]

This means that, assuming both parties consent to this procedure, the court must consider whether hearing directly from the child would genuinely aid in determining what arrangement best serves their welfare. The court must be satisfied there is no other appropriate way to ascertain the child’s views. If a safe, adequate alternative exists (e.g. via a neutral expert, mediator, or third-party report), the court may decide not to interview or take a written statement from the child. Further, the disclosure of information obtained under section 16(1.1) will only be disclosed to the spouses if the court is of the opinion that disclosure is in the best interests of the child.[7]

The presence of an amicus curiae and privacy safeguards aims to protect children from undue pressure or influence, and to ensure that any statements or interviews reflect their own views — not what a parent (or one side) wants to be heard. 

By allowing direct input from the child, the Bill seeks to align domestic law with international norms, notably, the principles in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN-CRC), which Canada has ratified. Under that treaty, a child capable of forming their own views has the right to express them in matters affecting them, and those views should be given due weight relative to their age and maturity.[8]

This amendment is significant for various reasons. Empowering courts to obtain a child’s views directly, whether in writing or through a private interview, matters because it strengthens the principle that children are active participants in decisions that profoundly affect their lives. Historically, courts relied heavily on parents, lawyers, or third-party assessors to infer what a child wanted, which sometimes led to filtered, incomplete, or even inaccurate portrayals of the child’s true perspective. By creating a structured, safeguarded way for a judge to hear from a child directly, Bill C-223 helps ensure that the child’s voice is genuine, protected from parental pressure, and appropriately weighed alongside other best-interest factors. It also signals a shift toward greater transparency and child-centered justice in family law.

Limitations to the efficacy of this provision exist, however, as its use is discretionary, and not mandatory. Even if the conditions are satisfied, a court may decide not to call the child or take a written statement. Further, the requirement that both parents agree to the child’s direct input means this route may not always be available, particularly in high conflict cases or when one parent refuses to provide their consent – the very situations where a child’s unfiltered views might be most important.

There are also practical limitations. The court must consider whether there is a suitable alternative—such as a Voice of the Child report, a parenting assessment, mediation, or input from a professional trained in child interviewing. If another method is more appropriate, the court will not interview the child directly. Additionally, the child’s views are not determinative; they are only one factor among many in the broader best-interests analysis. Younger children or those unable to articulate independent views may not be interviewed at all. Finally, the process includes strict confidentiality rules, meaning parents may receive only limited information about what the child said, which can lead to disputes about transparency and fairness.

4. Limiting Reliance on Myths and Parental Alienation Claims

One of the central aims of Bill C-223 is to prevent courts from relying on outdated myths or stereotypes about family violence, such as the harmful belief that “violence ends when the relationship ends.”

Research and lived experience consistently show that separation is often the most dangerous period for survivors, with risk of coercion, threats, and physical harm frequently increasing after the relationship ends.[9] When courts rely on stereotypes instead of evidence-based understanding, they can unintentionally minimize the seriousness of patterns like post-separation harassment, stalking, control over finances or children, and the very real escalation of risk. By explicitly directing courts not to rely on these myths, the Bill pushes the legal system toward more accurate assessments of risk and better protection for children and caregivers.

In practical terms, this goal can guide how judges assess parenting disputes, decision-making responsibilities, and the safety of parenting arrangements. For example, if a parent claims the other parent is “overreacting” to past violence because “the relationship is over,” the court must look beyond that assumption and consider whether ongoing patterns (such as monitoring, intimidation, or using children as a means of control)continue to put the family at risk. Judges may also become more cautious about ordering shared parenting, unsupervised exchanges, or equal time where there is evidence of coercive control. Lawyers can use this provision to argue that risk assessments, expert involvement, and safety-focused parenting plans are essential, rather than optional, in cases with documented violence. The provision encourages courts to approach family violence as a continuum, not an isolated past event.

However, important limitations remain. The Bill can direct courts away from harmful stereotypes, but it cannot guarantee that every judge will fully understand the dynamics of coercive control or apply the principles consistently. Much depends on judicial training and the evidence put before the court. Another limitation is that family violence is often difficult to prove, especially when it is non-physical; if the evidence is thin, the myth-avoidance directive may have limited practical impact. Additionally, while the provision discourages stereotypes, it does not prescribe specific outcomes. Judges retain broad discretion, which can lead to varied interpretations. As a result, the success of this goal will rely heavily on how clearly family violence is documented, how effectively counsel raises the issue, and how willing individual courts are to engage deeply with the realities of ongoing risk.

About the authors

Haya Sakakini and Sophia Cripouris are lawyers at Tyas Family Law PC. Since being called to the bar in 2022, both have practised exclusively in family law, with practices focused on complex parenting disputes, child and spousal support, property division, and high-conflict family litigation. They regularly advocate for clients in both negotiated resolutions and contested proceedings, with a particular emphasis on child-centred outcomes.

Haya is the recipient of the Allan Falconer Memorial Student Essay Award (2021). Her award-winning paper on psychological violence in family law cases was published in the Canadian Journal of Family Law.

Sophia articled with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and worked at a supervised access centre, informing her child-centred advocacy and focus on judicial consideration of children’s safety, views, and preferences in parenting disputes.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.