i

Families Count 2024: new resource on family structure now available

i

Families Count 2024 is now available

Topic: Separation and divorce

Family Policy Update: Changes to the Divorce Act

February 17, 2021

On March 1, 2021, Canada’s new Divorce Act will come into force, introducing significant amendments to the Act since it was enacted in 1985, and since child support guidelines were amended in 1997. These changes modernize the language in the Divorce Act to encompass family adaptations outside of a deficit-based framework and include new guidelines that aim to centre the well-being of families and children.1

While the changes to the Divorce Act were initially scheduled for July 1, 2020, circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic deferred the amendments from coming into force until March 1, 2021.2

The four stated key objectives of the pending changes to the Divorce Act are:

  • To promote the best interests of the child;
  • To address the issue of family violence;
  • To help reduce child poverty; and,
  • To improve the efficiencies and accessibility of the family justice system.3

Terms “custody” and “access” to be replaced

Moving away from the terms of “custody” and “access,” with their proprietary connotations, parents and courts will now approach parenting orders that are focused on “decision-making responsibilities” and “parenting time” between parents. The change in terminology aims to reduce conflict between parents and more clearly convey the functions of parenting determinations under the Act. “Custody” has been replaced with the ability to make decisions regarding children’s care and well-being, and “access” has been replaced with the amount of time that children are to spend with each parent.

Non-court dispute resolution and parenting plans

The amendments state that parents should be encouraged to make their own parenting plans using non-court methods of dispute resolution, including mediation and negotiation, unless this is not appropriate, for example because of family violence concerns or mental health issues.  Parents are expected to make decisions based on the best interests of their children, and to recognize that conflict between them is harmful to their children.

Factors surrounding a child’s “best interests” to recognize each family situation is unique

During Committee hearings on proposed changes to the Act, the “presumption of equal parenting” was rejected on the basis that there is no default or one-size-fits-all approach to family situations, as children and family dynamics are diverse and unique. The new Divorce Act includes a provision that when “allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.”

The new act specifically outlines what is to be considered in determining a child’s best interest, including:

a. The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

b. The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse, each of the child’s siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child’s life;

c. Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;

d. The history of care of the child;

e. The child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

f. The child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

g. Any plans for the child’s care;

h. The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

i. The ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and cooperate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

    • Any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
    • the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child; and

j. the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the child; and

k. Any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.4

As part of ensuring the “best interests of the child,” the changes to the Divorce Act will allow a “non-parent” – including grandparents and other close family members – to apply for the right to spend a certain amount of time with the children of divorced parents. If this is granted, a legally binding “contact order” would be entered with the court.

Addressing impacts of family violence

The new Divorce Act addresses family violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), recognizing that, even if children are not directly or physically injured, they are harmed by their exposure to violence. The Act also identifies indicators of abusive behaviour, including coercive and controlling behaviour, or injury to pets or deliberate damage to property.

Mitigating risk of child poverty

Spouses and children are more vulnerable to living in poverty after a divorce or separation.5 The updated Divorce Act includes measures to:

  • Provide more tools to establish and enforce child support. In some cases, for example, tax information will be made accessible (keeping with Canada’s privacy laws) to those determining accurate child support amounts.
  • Lessen the need for costly court processes. By encouraging non-court dispute resolutions, families can avoid the expensive fees that going to court entails.

New framework to help decisions on relocation cases

Situations in which one parent wishes to relocate with a child following separation divorce have long been one of the most contentious issues in family law. The new Divorce Act aims to address this uncertainty by outlining what factors should and should not be considered. The framework’s new components are as follows:

  1. It requires a parent wishing to relocate with the children to provide 60 days’ notice in writing to the other parent of their desire/intention to relocate. The other parent then has 30 days to object to such relocation.
  2. It establishes which parent has the burden of proof in the event the matter moves to court.
    • If the children spend “substantially equal” time with both parents, then the parent who wishes to relocate must show why the relocation would be in the children’s best interests.
    • If the children spend the “vast majority” of their time with the parent who wishes to relocate, then the other parent would have to show why it is not in the children’s best interests to move.
  3. In determining whether the move is or is not in the children’s best interests, the courts are to consider the reasons for the relocation, but it is not to consider whether the moving parent would relocate with or without the children.

To learn more about changes to the Divorce Act, read the summary available on the Department of Justice website.

Notes

  1. Department of Justice Canada, “The Divorce Act Changes Explained.” Link: http://bit.ly/3nG5Up0.
  2. Department of Justice Canada, “Government Delays Divorce Act Amendments Coming into Force in Response to Requests from Justice Partners Due to COVID-19 pandemic.” Link: http://bit.ly/3ictOqI.
  3. L. Crisp, “Substantial Changes to the Divorce Act,” McKercher LLP. Link: http://bit.ly/3oFMOjW.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Department of Justice Canada, “Strengthening and Modernizing Canada’s Family Justice System.” Link: http://bit.ly/2OJfQPn.

 

In Conversation: Rachel Margolis on Divorce Trends in Canada

Nathan Battams

Download In Conversation: Rachel Margolis on Divorce Trends in Canada

(February 10, 2020) Families in Canada have evolved considerably across generations, as have patterns of coupling (i.e. marriage, living common-law) and uncoupling (i.e. separation and divorce) that have an impact on families and family well-being. While a large and growing body of family research has documented how divorce can impact individuals and their families, our understanding of how this has changed over time has been significantly affected by a lack of publicly available vital statistics data in Canada over the past decade.

Rachel Margolis, PhD, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Western Ontario and panellist at the Families in Canada Conference 2019, joined Vanier Institute Communications Manager Nathan Battams to discuss Canada’s evolving data landscape in her recent study published in Demographic Research exploring recent divorce trends and the use of administrative data to fill the data gap on divorce.

Tell me about your recent study on divorce in Canada, and what made you interested in this topic…

This study, which was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), addresses an issue I’ve been thinking about for a long time. While doing my research and teaching demography over the years, I’ve often been frustrated by the fact that we haven’t had national measures on marriage and divorce in Canada since 2008, when vital statistics data stopped being analyzed and reported by Statistics Canada. My collaborators Youjin Choi, Feng Hou and Michael Haan all worked on this project with me to learn about recent changes in divorce.

The real motivation for this study was to strengthen our understanding of demographic changes in Canada.

This is important because marriage and divorce data provide important and unique measures for studying families and family life. It matters for understanding fertility trends, since formal unions are the context in which most babies are born. It matters for understanding family finances, since formal unions are vehicles for wealth accumulation, and they can tell us a lot about family resources and provisions, such as housing and caregiving. The real motivation for this study was to strengthen our understanding of demographic changes in Canada.

Historically, information on marriage and divorce in Canada has been collected and managed by a system called Vital Statistics. Vital statistics exist in most countries in some form as the means of collecting population data on things like marriage, divorce, births and deaths, although some countries have recently moved away from this mode of data collection and are exploring alternate strategies. In the United States, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) discontinued divorce and marriage statistics in 1996, as it was argued that similar data could be collected more easily and inexpensively through surveys, which are now used to gather information about marriage and divorce rates.

And while we haven’t had data published by Statistics Canada on marriage and divorce trends since 2008, there hasn’t been any alternative data source in place, like there is in the U.S. The decision to stop publishing these data was made for a variety of reasons, including fiscal constraints, some problems with data compatibility across provinces and territories, and a reported underutilization of these data online. But with no alternative data source, there has since been a decade-long data gap on marriage and divorce in Canada.

The first data gap this study sought to address was whether other types of data can fill this gap. Though some researchers have already used administrative data to look at the effects of changes in marital status on other outcomes, we haven‘t really assessed the quality of these divorce measures.1

Second, there has been no national data on how the divorce rate in Canada has changed since vital statistics data collection ceased in 2008. Since then, research on divorce in Canada has relied on information about the current marital or conjugal status of individuals, which doesn’t provide divorce rates. The latter are important to track because they tell us a lot about how things are changing over time. Current marital status is not an effective indicator of divorce because many people who divorce later repartner and/or remarry. Our study used anonymized administrative data from tax records to estimate the divorce rate – the first to do so.

A third gap is that we don’t have information on the changing age patterns of divorce in Canada since 2008. We do know that there are significant shifts taking place in comparable countries, such as the United States, and in Europe. In the U.S., we know that divorce rates among those aged 50 and older – often referred to as “grey divorce” – doubled in the 1990s and 2000s. There are a lot of reasons for this, but many of the same trends happening among baby boomers in the U.S. are likely happening to boomers in Canada as well. But, with no data, we don’t really know whether there’s also been a “grey divorce revolution” in Canada.

What did you find in your study on divorce in Canada?

First of all, we found that the divorce rate in Canada can indeed be measured somewhat well with administrative data, when comparing it with vital statistics data before 2008. When we extrapolate after 2008 with this approach, we see a decline in the annual divorce rate between 2009 and 2016. The annual divorce rate was about 10 divorces per 1,000 married women in the early 2000s and this declined starting in 2006, reaching 6 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2016.

Second, we found a shifting age distribution among people getting divorced. In the early 1990s, most divorces in Canada were granted to people in their 20s and 30s. Fifty-one percent of all divorces were granted to women aged 20–39, 42% went to those 40–59 and only 7% to those 60 and above. Over the last 20 years, it has become more common for divorces to occur later. For example, in 2016, only 28% of divorces were granted to women 20–39, 57% were to women 40–59 and 15% to those 60 and above. Divorce, then, has become increasingly common at older ages.

Fewer people are getting married and those that do get married are more likely to be from groups with lower divorce rates.

Third, there have been changes in divorce rates for both younger and older Canadians. Divorce rates among adults in their 20s and 30s fell by about 30% in the last decade. Research from other countries helps explain this, as fewer people are getting married and those that do get married are more likely to be from groups with lower divorce rates (highly educated with lots of resources), and they are therefore less likely to get divorced while in this age group, and those who do are in potentially higher quality marriages than they were in the past.2 Even though age-specific divorce rates are highest for younger women, they’ve been declining over the period of our analysis.

Meanwhile, divorce rates for older people in Canada have increased slightly through the 1990s and 2000s, but nothing as significant as the “grey divorce revolution” in the U.S., and this now seems to have ceased. In the U.S., divorce rates for those aged 50 and older doubled between 1990 and 2010, from 4.87 to 10.05 divorces per 1,000 married persons.3 We found that the comparable increase in Canada between 1991 and 2008 was from 4.02 to 5.17 divorces per 1,000 married persons during this period (+25%). Since 2008, we find no further increase in divorce rates for older adults in Canada.

Divorce rates for older people in Canada have increased slightly through the 1990s and 2000s, but nothing as significant as the “grey divorce revolution” in the U.S.

The fourth thing we explored was comparing divorce trends in Canada with what’s been seen in the U.S. We found that trends in divorce in Canada are similar to trends in the U.S. Divorce rates were relatively flat in the 1990s and early 2000s and then declined more recently (see Figure 1). However, one important difference is that divorce rates are about half in Canada of what they are in the U.S. For example, for most of the 1990s and early 2000s, divorce rates in the U.S. sat at about 20 divorces per 1,000 married women, and the Canadian rate was about 10 divorces per 1,000 married women. More recently, divorce rates in the U.S. were 16.7 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2016, and the comparable number for Canada is 6.22.

Overall, we found that using tax data provided invaluable insights into recent trends in divorce in Canada and helps inform whether administrative data can be used to fill the data gap on divorce. However, we also found important caveats regarding data quality in recent years, as coverage rates of divorced people in the tax data has declined to some degree (i.e. divorces have been undercounted in tax data relative to vital statistics). This is potentially problematic, because it could lead us to increasingly underestimate divorce in the tax data over time, and it could become unclear how much of a decline in divorce in recent years is due to a decline in data quality.

Looking ahead, as a family researcher, how would you complete the phrase “Wouldn’t it be great if…”

To address data gaps, there’s been a growing focus in Canada and other countries to use administrative data rather than survey data to learn about the population. There are many reasons for this and it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to be careful about different issues that arise with data quality – and that’s what we found when we used tax data to look at divorce trends.

In wanting to address this, I would say, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could add questions about marriage and divorce in the last year to a large annual survey in Canada with a known high response rate?” A survey with a large enough sample size, such as Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey or the long-form census, could serve as an efficient and reliable vehicle for collecting these important data.

We can also learn from our neighbours to the south, who added questions about recent changes in marital status to the American Community Survey in 2008. This could provide answers to how marriage and divorce are changing and how the percentage of marriages that will end in divorce is changing over time – invaluable insights for researchers, policy makers, service providers and others with an interest in families in Canada.

Rachel Margolis, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Western Ontario and a Vanier Institute of the Family contributor.

Nathan Battams is Communications Manager at the Vanier Institute of the Family.

Access the study in Demographic Research (open access):

Rachel Margolis, PhD, Youjin Choi, PhD, Feng Hou, PhD, and Michael Haan, PhD, “Capturing Trends in Canadian Divorce in an Era Without Vital Statistics,” Demographic Research 41, Article 52 (December 20, 2019). Link: https://bit.ly/39lHEBD.

More from Rachel Margolis:

  • Rachel Margolis, Grandparent Health and Family Well-Being, The Vanier Institute of the Family. Link: https://bit.ly/2Ugvm9s.
  • Rachel Margolis, Feng Hou, Michael Haan and Anders Holm, “Use of Parental Benefits by Family Income in Canada: Two Policy Changes,” Journal of Marriage and Family 81(2) (November 13, 2018). Link: https://bit.ly/2RTPSuN.
  • Rachel Margolis and Laura Wright, “Healthy Grandparenthood: How Long Is It, and How Has It Changed?,” Demography 54 (October 10, 2017). Link: https://bit.ly/36W9ClM.
  • Rachel Margolis, “The Changing Demography of Grandparenthood,” Journal of Marriage and Family 78(3) (March 14, 2016). Link: https://bit.ly/380Ow7c.
  • Rachel Margolis and Natalie Iciaszczyk, “The Changing Health of Canadian Grandparents,” Canadian Studies in Population 42(3-4): 63-76. Link: https://bit.ly/36TLNv1.

Notes

  1. This study did not focus on separations. Relative to the number of divorced people, the number who are legally separated but not divorced is small, and most separations end in divorce. In addition, separation rates are not a traditional demographic measure.
  2. Phillip N. Cohen, “The Coming Divorce Decline,” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 5 (August 28, 2019). Link: https://bit.ly/2RK7J7j.
  3. Susan L. Brown and Lin I-Fen, “The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults, 1990–2010,” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 67(6) (2012). Link: https://bit.ly/2UdlDAB.

“Virtual Parenting” After Separation and Divorce

Rachel Birnbaum, PhD, RSW, LLM

Download “Virtual Parenting” After Separation and Divorce (PDF)

The rapid increase in the use of communication technologies, such as text messages, instant messaging, email, social networking sites, Skype, FaceTime and webcams, has provided a variety of new ways for parents to maintain their relationships with their children and manage family responsibilities after separation and divorce. At the same time, the increased use of these methods has also created a new area of discussion and debate about the risks and benefits of this type of “virtual parenting.” Issues such as safety and vulnerability, the ability to use technology, and privacy and confidentiality for the child and each parent are only some of the considerations both for the family justice professionals who recommend virtual contact and for the courts that decide on these types of parent–child contact orders.

Families use technology to maintain ties after separation and divorce

Despite the increasing use of smartphones and online communication technologies, there are few studies about whether this “virtual” contact has an impact on children and their parents after separation and divorce, and what the nature of this impact could be.

Research to date has found that many parents report that using technology has a positive impact because it allows them to be able to stay connected to their children, though some negative aspects were discussed as well, such as sadness about being a “virtual parent,” and the challenges in navigating tensions in keeping the communications private from the other parent and not interfering in the daily activities of the other parent’s household.

One study found that children and youth preferred face-to-face contact and reported difficulties maintaining contact regardless of the type of virtual technology used (e.g. Skype, email, texting, FaceTime). This was due to factors such as issues with phone lines, a lack of immediacy with email contact and time differences as a result of the geographic distances.

The results of these studies highlight both the strengths and challenges parents and children experience in using technology to maintain their contact after separation and divorce. However, they don’t provide a complete picture, as they do not differentiate between parents who communicate well with each other and those who have more conflictual communication resulting from factors such as problem-solving difficulties, a lack of trust and instances where there may be family violence concerns after their separation and divorce.

Diverse perspectives provide fuller insights on “virtual parenting”

A 2018 study provided new insight by incorporating the perspective of legal and mental health professionals, who were surveyed on their views and experiences of using virtual technology after separation and divorce. They found mixed results, particularly with high-conflict families that could not cooperate and in situations where there was interference with the former partner’s parenting time during virtual parent–child contact.

As part of a broader research agenda examining children’s participation in separation and divorce matters, two follow-up studies funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) were performed exploring the use of virtual technology to maintain contact between parents and children after separation and divorce. The first study surveyed 166 family justice professionals (e.g. mental health professionals and lawyers) about their experiences with online technology in general and their views on virtual technology as a means of parent–child contact.

Two key questions provided unique insights into experiences with virtual technology after separation and divorce:

  • What do family justice professionals believe are the challenges and benefits regarding the use of technology as a means of parent–child contact?
  • What types of conflicts, if any, do adults and children report as a result of using any type of technology for parent–child contact?

The second study explored the same topics from the perspective of parents and children, aiming to shed light on how modern families maintain and manage relationships after separation and divorce.

Research to date has found that many parents report that using technology has a positive impact because it allows them to be able to stay connected to their children.

While the sample sizes were small in both studies, they are the only ones to date that explore the multiple perspectives (e.g. mental health professionals, lawyers, children and parents) using multiple research approaches (e.g. surveys and interviews) to learn more about the views and experiences of children and parents who use virtual communication to maintain contact after separation and divorce.

Children and parents see benefits and challenges associated with virtual contact

One of the recurring themes in the discussion with parents on the benefits was that it can reduce conflict between the parents. As one respondent said, “[I]t cuts down the number of conflicts that can be brought up, which tends to happen when you have swaps…” As with previous research, parents reported that technology has facilitated contact with their children:

“…once we started using this technology [FaceTime], it made all the difference in the world, because she can see me, I can see her, we talk […] if I am away at work, I can show her where I am and make her feel she’s there with me.”

Despite this benefit, parents also reported several sources of conflict, ranging from relatively minor (e.g. when the resident parent interrupts a child’s contact time with the non-resident parent) to more serious concerns about safety (e.g. non-resident parent having access into the resident parent’s home) and confidentiality (one parent said they were “not sure [they like their] child being online and an open communication as there is no real privacy and worry about pictures being taken and then sent somewhere”).

Interview questions about the experiences of children also provided valuable insight into the use of virtual technology as a means of parent–child contact after separation and divorce. Feelings of closeness to the non-resident parent were reported, along with reservations about virtual contact. “While it is really great to see my dad,” one child was reported to have said, “I want to feel him near me as well.” Another echoed this sentiment of longing for the non-resident parent: “One thing I don’t like about this [virtual contact] is I can’t actually see him in person… it’s sad, but good at the same time.”

Using technology to maintain parent–child contact can bring benefits, but also safety and privacy concerns.

Interference with access time and privacy also emerged as themes (“My mom is always asking me how it’s going and how long will I be online with my dad”), as well as availability of the non-resident parent (“I am supposed to call [FaceTime] on Monday and Wednesday; most of the time I can’t really make it, but it creates problems for my dad, who gets upset”).

Family justice professionals see risks and rewards in “virtual contact”

Family justice professionals were also asked to comment about the benefits and challenges of the use of communication technologies as a means of facilitating contact between separated and divorced parents and their children. Below is a snapshot of some of their comments on the risks and rewards:

“Technology can be a valuable tool for facilitating communication and connections when used properly, while at the same time presenting a heightened risk when used improperly and in an unsupervised manner, particularly for young or impressionable children who are caught up in their parents’ conflict deliberately or inadvertently.”

“I think it would be helpful in maintaining a parent–child relationship when one parent lives a significant distance away from where the child resides.”

“Challenge – privacy. Benefit – staying connected in real time.”

“It is a source of evidence about the parent’s ability to cooperate and whether they can reasonably make decisions about the child’s best interests. More rarely, it is also used to establish a prior inconsistent statement. The benefits are significant, since the lack of physical presence can assist clients to calm down in high-conflict cases. At the same time, some clients incorrectly try to use the medium to set up traps for the other parent or engage in what they see is a strategic manoeuvre in litigation.”

Parent and children reports to family justice professionals

To explore the issue of conflict in the parental relationship that may or may not facilitate virtual contact, all family justice professionals were asked to report how often, if ever, their adult and child clients report conflicts (e.g. privacy concerns, safety, confidentiality) during virtual contact such as Skype, FaceTime and WhatsApp.

The parents reported to family justice professionals that the majority of conflicts occur more often as a result of the other parent listening in on their conversation with the child (60%); the other parent alleging that the child is busy doing something else at the designated time (35%); the child not being available for the call at the designated time (41%); and the other parent saying that they do not know how to use or set up the technology (4%).

When asked to identify any other types of conflicts raised by parents, they said that conflicts also occur over the costs of the use of technology and who pays for it; concerns over rural areas where technology is unreliable or too expensive versus urban areas; one parent using the child to harass the non-custodial parent about child support issues; and some parents reporting that they do not want their child using technology because of safety and confidentiality concerns.

The results of this survey are similar to the 2018 study by Saini and Polak, who found that while there were benefits reported by the family justice professionals about using technology to maintain parent–child contact after separation and divorce, there were also challenges such as privacy concerns, safety issues and families experiencing high conflict who may require specific protocols to be put in place to mitigate these concerns.

When surveyed about their child clients, the majority of lawyers and mental health professionals reported that children said they “sometimes” experience conflict over the use of Skype, FaceTime and so on, with the most common conflict being that they’re busy and “do not want to talk at that time” (55%); the child(ren) not having a lot to say to the other parent and the other parent getting upset (45%); and the other parent listening to their conversation during parent–child contact (39%).

When asked to identify any other types of conflicts raised by their child clients, they reported that conflicts also occur over the non-resident parent asking the child questions about the resident parent; the parents arguing with one another during the call; the other parent not being available when the child calls; and the number of text messages and inappropriate content being sent to the child, including both verbal and emotional abuse by the non-resident parent.

Shining light on diverse experiences after separation and divorce

This is the first study incorporating multiple perspectives on virtual technology as a means of parent–child contact after separation and divorce from parents, children and family justice professionals. The findings highlight both risks and rewards depending on the different perspectives (i.e. mother, father, children, mental health professional, lawyer). They also highlight the need for more direction in their family law practices at a time when virtual contact is being increasingly recommended by family justice professionals and the court as a means of parent–child contact after separation.

A number of concerns were highlighted by parents reporting to their lawyers about virtual parent–child contact. These were related to the other parent listening in on the conversation as well as having to be responsible for making sure the child is available at the specified time. In the parent telephone interviews, the greatest concerns centred on safety and the resident parent feeling vulnerable during virtual parent–child contact as well as on privacy issues. That is, parents raised concerns regarding being blocked from access to the technology being used by the non-resident parent and the child, invasion of privacy and feelings of being monitored (e.g. the resident parent as well as the non-resident parent) and the unfettered virtual access to the resident parent’s home as a result of the use of technology. This latter theme raises particular concerns for high-conflict parents and especially for those families in which there may also be issues of domestic violence (e.g. stalking).

Nevertheless, there were also a number of benefits highlighted as a result of virtual contact in both the parental reports to their lawyers as well as in the parent interviews. The greatest benefit raised by each parent is that the child is that it facilitates an ongoing parental relationship and and that it can provide reduced hostilities between the parents, because they have no contact with one another other than organizing the call if the child requires adult assistance.

While it is important to hear diverse perspectives (e.g. children, parents, lawyers, family justice professionals) about this use of technology, more research is needed to determine what impact, if any, there is in relation to factors such as cultural nuances, barriers to using technology (e.g. rural versus urban areas) and the relative burdens and cost (i.e. emotional and financial) to parents providing the technology. It is equally important to examine the safety risks underlying the use of virtual communication tools, especially when high-conflict cases and family violence are of concern.

Our understanding can also benefit from unpacking some of the underlying assumptions about parenting via the virtual world. For example, what does “virtual parenting” mean to children and young people in particular?

Finally, the two studies raise important cautions and considerations for family justice professionals and the court when virtual technology is being recommended as a means of contact after separation. That is, at minimum, consideration should be given to factors such as the child’s age and the length of the contact time; the degree of parental assistance required to facilitate virtual parent–child contact; whether the child has any special needs and resulting degree of parental support required; the type and degree of conflict between the parents; the type and degree of domestic violence concerns (e.g. stalking); financial costs; the separation of aspirational from practical and feasible parenting plans; children’s views on virtual parent–child contact before court orders or agreements are made; and mechanisms to follow up on whether and how virtual contact is working for the children.

Rachel Birnbaum, PhD, RSW, LLM, is a Social Work Professor, cross-appointed between Childhood Studies (Interdisciplinary Programs) and Social Work at King’s University College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. She has written, presented and conducted research on many aspects of family justice issues, with a particular emphasis on children’s participation post separation. She thanks the children, parents and family justice professionals who participated in this research for their valuable time in sharing their views and experiences with virtual technology in parenting disputes after separation. Dr. Birnbaum gratefully acknowledges the Social Sciences and Research Humanities Council (SSHRC) in providing funding support to this important and timely area of research.

This article is a reprint of a three-part series featured in The Lawyer’s Daily.

 

Source information available on the PDF version of this resource.

Published on November 12, 2019

Facts and Stats: Divorce, Separation and Uncoupling in Canada

Just as families continuously evolve, so do the interpersonal relationships at the heart of family life. Every year, thousands of Canadians come together to form committed family relationships – some of whom decide to raise children together – and sometimes, a variety of reasons may compel them to end their relationship, which can result in diverse, unique and often difficult transitional experiences for the family.

Patterns of coupling or partnering and uncoupling or unpartnering have evolved throughout Canada’s history in response to social, economic, cultural and legal changes. While divorce rates were low for most of the 20th century due to restrictive social norms and legal processes, there has since been an increase in the share of families who have experienced separation, divorce and uncoupling – particularly following the liberalization of divorce through the 1968 Divorce Act and further amendments in 1986.

Whether it’s separation and divorce following a marriage, or the uncoupling of a common-law union, this change can be emotionally, socially, legally and/or financially challenging for family members. Current research shows, however, that the impact on adults and children – including the speed and degree of adjustment – varies widely and is shaped by post-divorce circumstances, access to community programs and services, as well as the availability of information, resources and support during the transition.

In May 2018, the federal government proposed amendments to the Divorce Act to mitigate the adversarial nature of family court proceedings following separation and divorce. These changes are meant to serve the “best interests of the children,” and include defining what these “best interests” are, updating adversarial language such as “custody” and “access” to terms that include “parenting orders” and “parenting time,” establishing clear guidelines for when one parent wants to relocate with a child, making it easier for people to collect support payments, strengthening the capacity of courts to address family violence and compelling lawyers to encourage clients to use family-dispute resolution services, such as mediation.

In this evolving social, cultural and legal context, our new fact sheet uses data from the General Social Survey1 to explore family experiences of divorce, separation and uncoupling in Canada.

Highlights include:

  • In 2017, an estimated 9% of Canadians aged 15 and older were divorced or separated (and not living common law), up from 8% in 1997.
  • In 2016, surveyed Canadian lawyers reported charging an average $1,770 in total fees for uncontested divorce cases and $15,300 for contested divorce cases.
  • In 2011, nearly 1 in 5 Canadians (19%) said that their parents are divorced or separated, nearly twice the share in 2001 (10%).
  • In 2011, two-thirds (66%) of divorced Canadians said they do not have remarriage intentions (23% said they were uncertain).

Download Facts and Stats: Divorce, Separation and Uncoupling in Canada (PDF)

Among top reasons for divorces in Canada we can find:

  • Infidelity: Extramarital affairs break trust and create an irreparable rift between partners.
  • Communication Breakdown: Lack of effective communication leads to misunderstandings and resentment, causing many marriages to fail.
  • Addictions and Gambling problem: Addiction to legal online casinos can lead to financial ruin and neglect of family responsibilities, causing significant marital issues and divorce.
  • Financial Problems: Disagreements over spending, debt, and financial priorities often strain marriages.

Notes

  1. The most recent data available on this topic is from 2011. This fact sheet will be updated when new data is released in Fall 2018.

Timeline: 50 Years of Families in Canada

Today’s society and today’s families would have been difficult to imagine, let alone understand, a half-century ago.

Families and family life have become increasingly diverse and complex, but families have always been the cornerstone of our society, the engine of our economy and at the centre of our hearts.

Learn about how families and family experiences in Canada have changed over the past 50 years with our new timeline!

Download the 50 Years of Families in Canada timeline.

Lone Mothers and Their Families in Canada: Diverse, Resilient and Strong

Mother’s Day is just around the corner, a time when children of all ages recognize and honour mothers, grandmothers and, increasingly, great-grandmothers! As we focus our attention on moms, many people worry about the prevalence of lone mothers and express concern about the well-being of their families.

“For many people, the term ‘lone mother’ brings to mind an image of a poor, struggling victim of sorts. They’re often seen as a single, growing group in crisis, toiling to raise children all on their own,” says Vanier Institute of the Family CEO Nora Spinks. “But this stereotype overlooks the diverse family experiences of lone mothers. This diversity, and the complexity of family life, is often lost in the statistics.”

“Of Canada’s 9.4 million families, only 16% lived in lone-parent families in 2011, with eight in 10 being led by women,” says Spinks. Many people feel that lone-parent families have been growing consistently over time. The truth, however, is more complex.

This belief is in part the result of looking only at trends since the 1960s, when the “traditional” family model with two married parents was at its peak. However, family structures fluctuate over time. Looking back further, lone-parent families were relatively common; the share of children living with a lone parent was 12% in 1931, similar to the 1981 rate of 13%.

While these numbers are close, the stories behind them differ because families faced different realities in these times. Many lone-parent families in the first half of the 20th century were in fact the result of mothers who died giving birth. The rate of children living in lone-parent families resulting from family death was eight in 10 in 1931. By the end of the century, it was only one in 10.

After the baby boom, a growing share of lone mothers were the result of separation and divorce, particularly following divorce law reform in 1968. This was just one of many changes for women in Canada during this period: women also gained greater capacity for family planning after the birth control pill emerged, and a growing number were pursuing higher education and joining the paid labour force, resulting in rising incomes.

This growth continues today, as the economic well-being of women improves. The incomes of lone mothers grew by 51% between 1998 and 2008 (compared to 13% among men). The income gap among lone parent families has shrunk: lone-parent families headed by women had incomes worth 53% of those headed by men in 1998, but 70% by 2008.

The prevalence of lone mothers, and lone-parent families in general, has always fluctuated over time. The reasons change, but the reality of ongoing change is constant. Families adapt and react to change, regardless of their form or the number of parents within.

The “lone mother” label often leads to another misperception: that these moms are without support. “Lone” suggests that these mothers are raising a family without any outside support (as does “sole” in the alternate label of “sole support mother”).

Often, these moms are not raising their children alone. Sometimes support comes from ex-partners. In 2011, 35% of separated or divorced parents said that decisions about their child(ren)’s health, religion/spirituality or education were made jointly or alternately. That same year, 9% said that their child(ren) live equally between their homes.

Support can come from other family members as well. In 2011, 8% of grandparents lived with their grandchildren, and one-third of these technically lived in “lone” parent households. “That’s 600,000 grandmas and grandpas in the family home, many of whom provide care and support to both generations,” says Spinks.

Multigenerational living is on the rise. It’s relatively common among immigrant and Aboriginal families. Shared living makes it easier to share costs, pool savings and provide care. Three-quarters of grandparents in lone-parent homes report some responsibility for household costs.

Many lone mothers may be in committed relationships with a partner who contributes to their family life, but choose to live in “living apart together” (LAT) couples. According to Statistics Canada, 8% of women aged 20 and over (1.9 million) are in LAT couples. However, we do not know how many of these are lone mothers.

Just as families are diverse, so are the forms of support they can provide and receive. Not all networks of care or forms of support are easy to capture with statistics. Lone mothers can be supported by friends or family members who offer help in ways such as child care; financial loans; living space; transportation; used toys, books or other goods; meals or groceries; and emotional support.

“Any portrait or discussion of modern lone mothers requires an open mind. One needs to understand that family life is diverse and complex, and families of all kinds are adaptable, strong and resilient. Myths and stereotypes about particular family types only lead to misunderstandings,” says Spinks. “That idea has guided the Vanier Institute of the Family since its founding 50 years ago, and will continue to as we study Canada’s families in the years ahead.”