• The examples are a summary of issues described in Part 1. Custody and Access

  • Joint Parenting and Custody recognizing equality of parents with shared parenting the presumption.

  • May have more problems interacting with their children Non-resident biological fathers

  • All children treated equally regardless of custody arrangement.

  • Presumption that children not be moved from their hometown.

  • The amount of child support determination to include work expenses, legal costs, cost to maintain relationship with non-custodial children.

  • Enforce the presumption of law which states child support ends at age of majority

  • Special expenses presumed included in child support.

  • RRSP’s and other assets already equalized removed from further support or double dipping.

  • Accountability for Child Support payments received by the recipient.

  • Reverse tax treatment for child support payments that presently discriminates against lower income families.

  • Child support deduction to the payer which only seems logical and consistent with tax laws.

  • Child support orders and payments linked to access orders and compliance.

  • Adjustments done without court involvement.

  • The Divorce law states both parents are responsible for the financial well being of the children and their self sufficiency. Presumption is to impute income where parents are negligent.

  • Define treatment of inheritance, one time payments, pension benefits etc. after equalization.

the new Divorce act
  • Define clearly rules related to pensions so that both parties can plan their future.

  • Eliminate double dipping on Pensions already equalized. Pension rules should be defined at the time of equalization.

  • Define treatment of inheritance, severance and other one time payments after equalization.

  • Remove income equalization from spousal support that contradicts the Divorce Act.

  • Define length of support terms and criteria.

  • Eliminate automatic support increase with payer income adjustments.

  • Integrate spousal support with Child Support and ensure all family members are fairly treated.

of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in: the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.

The Results: How does the Fatherless Family Affect Adults, Children and Society?

Lone mothers

  • Are poorer

  • Are more likely to suffer from stress, depression, and other emotional and psychological problems

  • May have more problems interacting with their children Non-resident biological fathers

  • Have more health problems

  • Are more likely to have health problems and engage in high-risk behaviour

  • Are at risk of losing contact with their children

Children living without their biological fathers

  • Are more likely to live in poverty and deprivation

  • Have more trouble in school

  • Tend to have more trouble getting along with others

  • Have higher risk of health problems

  • Are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.

  • Are more likely to run away from home

Teenagers living without their biological fathers

  • Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health

  • Are more likely to become teenage parents

  • Are more likely to offend

  • Are more likely to smoke

  • Are more likely to drink alcohol

  • Are more likely to take drugs

  • Are more likely to play truant from school

  • Are more likely to be excluded from school

  • Are more likely to have adjustment problems

  • Are more likely to leave school at 16

Young adults who grew up not living with their biological fathers

  • Are less likely to attain qualifications

  • Are more likely to experience unemployment

  • Are more likely to have low incomes

  • Are more likely be on income support

  • Are more likely to experience homelessness

  • Are more likely to be caught offending and go to jail

  • Are more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems

  • Are more likely to develop health problems

  • Tend to enter partnerships earlier and more often as a cohabitation

  • Are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions

  • Are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership

Effects on the Social Fabric

  • Increased crime and violence

  • Decreased community ties

  • A growing ‘divorce culture’

  • Cycle of fatherlessness

  • Dependence on state welfare

Why all these Effects?

  • Poverty

  • Reduced parental and paternal attention

  • Conditions before, during and after divorce

Evaluating the Results

The weight of evidence indicates that the traditional family based upon a married father and mother is still the best environment for raising children, and it forms the soundest basis for the wider society.

The Stats / What’s at stake.

According to varying statistics around 50% of families will be confronted with a break up,

Every year there are approximately 75,000 divorces and 50% per cent of our children will have their lives affected in a dramatic fashion.

Of non-joint divorce applications over 75% are initiated by women and approximately 50,000 children are subject of custody orders every year. Of these approximately 90% of the time custody will be awarded to the women.

In spite of overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that show the detrimental impact of divorce, the government has done nothing to help the “Canadian Family”.

After all the substantive research, why does the Canadian government still dictate that divorce be dealt with in the costly, inconsistent, irrational and adversarial judicial system.


Why is it that governments have such a lack of political will to deal with the number 1 issue which impacts the most important Canadian resource….


The divorce rate in Canada is among the highest in the world. The legal industry alone related to divorce and related personal disputes is estimated at $6 billion a year industry. Legal costs are insane with nothing to show for monies spent. This in many cases represents a family’s life savings. Homes are lost, retirement and education savings are thrown away because the government dictates settlement of divorce issues in the courts. In addition to the financial impacts, emotional and physical illnesses are a result. The energies that were used to nurture the family are now taken up in an adversarial approach fuelled by a court process that forces further destruction of the family and sibling relationships.

The Child Support Guidelines were supposed to alleviate some conflict due to divorce. In fact the guidelines have made it more difficult for families that need it most, specifically families where a custodial spouse is not employed or has a lower income than the other parent. In fact it was acknowledged in the federal tax budget document of then Finance Minister Paul Martin that the change in tax treatment co-incident with the introduction of the Child Support Guidelines in 1997, will generate an additional $250 million in tax revenue each year.

  • The costs related to divorce has been shown to be the number one reason for child poverty and personal bankruptcy.

In a study sponsored by Statistics Canada (Why do children move in an out of low income), released in April 1999 the break- up of the family through divorce was shown to be the leading cause of the transition into poverty.

In another study released in June, 1999 (Death and Divorce) which compared the long term impact of death and divorce, it was shown that parental loss leads to inferior outcomes across a wide range of economic and social measures and the results imply that coming from a divorced family is even more detrimental than from a bereaved background.

According to a Statistics Canada 1998 study after separation,

86% children live with their mother, 7% with father, and about 6% in a joint custody arrangement.

Only 58% children see their non-custodial parent at least once per month.

50% of children placed in sole custody arrangements with their mothers will eventually lose all contact with their fathers.
– The University of B.C.

More than half the 940,000 children of divorce live in poverty -Vanier Institute of the Family

  • 25% had dropped out of high school

  • 40% percent received psychological help

  • 65% had poor relationship with their fathers

  • 30% had poor relationship with their mothers

  • Single parent households represent 23 percent of all Canadian families, but they account for 46 per cent of all children living in poverty.
  • 70% of young offenders come from divorced families or broken homes.
  • Divorced individuals account for almost 70 per cent of personal bankruptcies in Canada.

In spite of overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence that show the detrimental impact of divorce, the government has done nothing to help the “Canadian Family”.

After all the substantive research, why does the Canadian government still dictate that divorce be dealt with in the costly, inconsistent, irrational and adversarial judicial system.


Why is it that governments have such a lack of political will to deal with the number 1 issue which impacts the most important Canadian resource….


The divorce rate in Canada is among the highest in the world. The legal industry alone related to divorce and related personal disputes is estimated at $6 billion a year industry. Legal costs are insane with nothing to show for monies spent. This in many cases represents a family’s life savings. Homes are lost, retirement and education savings are thrown away because the government dictates settlement of divorce issues in the courts. In addition to the financial impacts, emotional and physical illnesses are a result. The energies that were used to nurture the family are now taken up in an adversarial approach fuelled by a court process that forces further destruction of the family and sibling relationships.

The Child Support Guidelines were supposed to alleviate some conflict due to divorce. In fact the guidelines have made it more difficult for families that need it most, specifically families where a custodial spouse is not employed or has a lower income than the other parent. In fact it was acknowledged in the federal tax budget document of then Finance Minister Paul Martin that the change in tax treatment co-incident with the introduction of the Child Support Guidelines in 1997, will generate an additional $250 million in tax revenue each year.

  • The costs related to divorce has been shown to be the number one reason for child poverty and personal bankruptcy.

In a study sponsored by Statistics Canada (Why do children move in an out of low income), released in April 1999 the break- up of the family through divorce was shown to be the leading cause of the transition into poverty.

In another study released in June, 1999 (Death and Divorce) which compared the long term impact of death and divorce, it was shown that parental loss leads to inferior outcomes across a wide range of economic and social measures and the results imply that coming from a divorced family is even more detrimental than from a bereaved background.

According to a Statistics Canada 1998 study after separation,

86% children live with their mother, 7% with father, and about 6% in a joint custody arrangement.

Only 58% children see their non-custodial parent at least once per month.

50% of children placed in sole custody arrangements with their mothers will eventually lose all contact with their fathers.
– The University of B.C.

More than half the 940,000 children of divorce live in poverty -Vanier Institute of the Family

  • 25% had dropped out of high school

  • 40% percent received psychological help

  • 65% had poor relationship with their fathers

  • 30% had poor relationship with their mothers

  • Single parent households represent 23 percent of all Canadian families, but they account for 46 per cent of all children living in poverty.
  • 70% of young offenders come from divorced families or broken homes.
  • Divorced individuals account for almost 70 per cent of personal bankruptcies in Canada.
  • Pits one parent against the other.

  • One parent is made the bad parent.

  • Promotes false allegations against the other parent.

  • Necessitates the staggering amounts of money paid by parents to lawyers, which is better spent on the children.

The Lawyers are Getting Nervous

This blog post includes an excerpt from the 2006 book Courts From Hell by Frank Simons

Frank Simons Courts From Hell