Bill C-223 (Keeping Children Safe Act) amends the Divorce Act to centre the safety and best interests of children and survivors of family violence in divorce proceedings. It imposes duties on legal advisers to screen for family‑violence risk and to implement or arrange safety plans, narrows how courts may treat allegations of deliberate parental manipulation (often called parental alienation), restricts court-ordered reunification therapy, removes presumptions in favour of shared parenting, and alters the legal tests and burdens in relocation cases.
For family‑law professionals and decision-makers this is a practical reframing: the bill requires trauma‑informed assessment before pursuing reconciliation or settlement processes, sets explicit rules about what courts must not infer when violence is alleged, creates a safeguarded route for direct child evidence, and changes who carries the evidentiary burden in many relocation disputes. These changes shift both courtroom practice and pre‑court advising for clients with histories or risks of family violence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires lawyers in divorce proceedings to assess for family‑violence risk and to implement safety plans when reasonable grounds exist; it bars courts from treating allegations of parental manipulation as a standalone negative factor except in narrow circumstances; it prohibits imposing reunification therapy on children without consent and removes a presumption that shared or equal parenting time is usually in a child’s best interests.
Who It Affects
Family‑law practitioners, judges and court staff, mediators, child‑welfare agencies, and therapists who provide reunification services; caregivers who are survivors of violence and the children in their care; and parents seeking to relocate with their children following separation.
Why It Matters
The bill explicitly imports trauma‑informed concerns into statutory best‑interests analysis and process rules, reducing the ability of alleged perpetrators to use claims of parental alienation to secure parenting time. It also reallocates evidentiary burdens in relocation disputes, which can materially change outcomes for primary caregivers seeking safety or opportunity by moving.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act starts by placing safety and trauma‑informed reasoning at the center of family law decision‑making. It tells legal advisers they must consider whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a client or family member faces a risk of family violence that would affect safety or the client’s ability to negotiate.
Where reasonable grounds exist, the lawyer must take steps to implement an appropriate plan and ensure the family has a safety plan and knowledge of support services. That changes the front‑end of divorce practice: screening and safety planning become a duty, not optional practice guidance.
On the substantive side, the bill alters the best‑interests framework. Courts must not consider allegations that a parent deliberately persuaded a child to resist contact with the other parent as a negative factor, except where (1) the alleged interfering parent has engaged in family violence, (2) the evidence is relevant to the child’s best interests, and (3) the evidence is not offered to recharacterize otherwise protected conduct.
The Act also requires courts to avoid making inferences that violence has ceased based on common patterns (for example, separation, lack of prior reports, inconsistent statements, resumed cohabitation, or absence of visible injuries).The bill narrows judicial tools for forced relationship‑repair: it forbids courts from limiting a parent’s time with a child for the purpose of improving the child’s relationship with the other parent, and it prevents courts from ordering a child into reunification therapy or allowing one parent to consent to such therapy without the other parent’s consent. For child testimony, the court may obtain a child’s views in camera and in writing or by interview with an amicus curiae present, but only if it is in the child’s best interests, both spouses agree, and the court is satisfied that safety and privacy won’t be compromised; disclosure to the parties is allowed only if disclosure is in the child’s best interests.Relocation law receives two interlocking changes.
First, courts must presume that a person intending to relocate will do so even if relocation is prohibited; they must also consider whether prohibiting relocation would harm the child’s relationship with the relocating person and whether the parties are likely to comply with orders, taking family‑violence impacts into account. Second, the allocation of evidentiary burdens is adjusted: when the child already spends the majority of time with the parent who wishes to move, the court must authorize relocation unless the objecting parent proves it is not in the child’s best interests and that the child should primarily reside with the objecting parent; if the child primarily resides with the opposing parent, the relocating parent bears the burden of proving the move is in the child’s best interests.
Transitional rules keep pre‑existing proceedings under the old text and allow some variation orders where courts previously relied on parental‑alienation findings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes it a statutory duty for legal advisers in divorce proceedings to consider whether reasonable grounds indicate a risk of family violence and, if so, to implement an appropriate safety plan and inform the spouse about support services.
Courts are prohibited from treating allegations that a parent deliberately persuaded a child to resist contact (parental‑alienation claims) as a factor against that parent, except where the alleged interfering parent has engaged in family violence and the evidence is relevant and not offered as a substitute for other findings.
The Act forbids courts from ordering reunification therapy for a child or allowing one parent to consent to such therapy without the other parent’s consent, and bars restricting parenting time solely to improve a child’s relationship with the other parent.
The court must not presume that shared or equal parenting time is in a child’s best interests, and it must explicitly take evidence of family violence into account when assessing each parent’s ability to communicate, cooperate and care for the child.
Relocation rules change: the court presumes a person intending to relocate will do so, and the evidentiary burden flips depending on where the child majority time is spent—if the relocating parent already has majority care, the opponent must prove the move is harmful; otherwise the mover must prove the move is in the child’s best interests.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Duty on legal advisers to screen for violence and to implement safety plans
This amendment inserts an explicit duty into the reconciliation provisions: lawyers must consider whether reasonable grounds for family‑violence risk exist and, where they do, take steps to implement an appropriate plan and ensure the family has a safety plan and information on support services. Practically, that requires lawyers to build screening and referral into initial intake and to document safety steps; it also creates a potential profession‑level compliance obligation that firms and regulators will need to translate into protocols and training.
Adjournment on consent and nomination to assist reconciliation
The text updates the court’s power to adjourn on request and to nominate persons to assist reconciliation, emphasizing consent and the use of counsellors or, in special cases, other suitable nominees. The change reinforces that reconciliation mechanisms should be consensual and that courts should consider the appropriateness of nominating someone with counselling expertise. Where risk of violence exists, the reconciliation path is no longer assumed appropriate.
Limits on using parental‑alienation allegations and specific myths ruled out
This part removes a former factor, tightens the child best‑interests list to explicitly require consideration of family‑violence evidence when assessing cooperation and care, and adds a prohibition on taking parental‑alienation allegations as a negative factor unless a narrow exception applies. It also lists several scenarios—such as lack of prior reports, inconsistent statements, resumed cohabitation, or absence of visible injuries—where the court must not infer violence has ended or that reports were unreliable. This changes evidentiary posture: judges must treat common post‑separation patterns as insufficient alone to dismiss violence claims.
Safeguarded child testimony and limits on reunification interventions
The bill authorizes the court to obtain a child’s views directly (in writing or via in‑camera interview) with an amicus curiae present, but only if it serves the child’s best interests, both spouses agree, and the child’s safety and privacy won’t be compromised; disclosure to parties is permitted only if disclosure itself is in the child’s best interests. The section also forbids courts from requiring a child to attend reunification therapy or permitting one parent alone to consent to such therapy, and defines reunification therapy broadly to cover any intervention intended to reestablish a parent–child relationship.
New relocation considerations and presumption about intent to move
Courts must now explicitly consider whether relocation reasons relate to family violence and must evaluate the impact of prohibiting a move on the child’s relationship with the relocating person. The statute also requires courts to take into account the likely ability of each parent to comply with orders, considering family‑violence impacts, and establishes a presumption that a person intending to relocate will do so regardless of prohibitions—shifting the court’s practical assessment toward planning for the move unless persuaded otherwise.
Who must prove what in relocation disputes
This provision reallocates burdens: when the child currently spends the majority of time with the parent who wishes to relocate, the court must permit the move unless the objecting parent proves the move is not in the child’s best interests and that the child should primarily reside with the objector. Conversely, where the majority of time is with the opposing parent, the relocating parent must prove the move benefits the child. That introduces a clearer, context‑sensitive evidentiary framework that will affect case strategy in relocation cases.
Grandfathering and variation where prior decisions relied on alienation findings
Proceedings started before coming into force remain subject to the prior text, but the bill treats some past findings about deliberate manipulation as a change in circumstances for variation applications. That allows courts to revisit prior decisions that depended on parental‑alienation findings once the new rules are in place, creating a limited pathway to relief for affected parties without applying the new law retroactively to completed cases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children exposed to family violence — Gains clearer statutory protections: courts must not discount allegations of violence based on common post‑separation patterns and must prioritize safety when assessing parenting arrangements.
- Survivors of domestic violence who are primary caregivers — Benefit from lawyer‑led safety planning and reduced risk that parental‑alienation claims will be used to shift custody away from them.
- Judges and court staff — Receive statutory guidance to apply trauma‑informed reasoning and avoid common inferential errors, which can help standardize decisions across similar fact patterns.
- Child‑welfare and support service providers — Will have clearer statutory footing to advocate for safety‑focused outcomes and to be part of safety‑planning processes initiated by legal advisers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legal advisers and law firms — Must implement screening, document assessments and safety plans, and train staff; smaller practices may face administrative and training costs.
- Family courts and tribunals — Will need resources for in‑camera child interviews with amicus curiae, to adjudicate tighter evidentiary disputes about family violence, and to manage more contested relocation hearings.
- Therapists and programs offering reunification services — May face restrictions on court‑mandated referrals and potential reductions in court‑ordered work; practitioners will need to adapt consent procedures.
- Parents opposing relocation — Will face a higher burden to stop a move when the child already spends majority time with the relocating parent, increasing litigation risk and evidentiary demands.
- Mediators and reconciliation services — Must incorporate safety screening before recommending dispute resolution or reconciliation, reducing the pool of cases suitable for standard mediation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting children and survivors by prioritizing safety and trauma‑informed judgment while preserving fair adjudication and parental rights: measures that reduce misuse of parental‑alienation claims and prevent forced reunification also create new evidentiary burdens, procedural hurdles, and implementation demands that could lengthen disputes or chill consensual resolution unless accompanied by clear standards, training, and resources.
The bill creates sharp operational questions. The duty on legal advisers to identify ‘‘reasonable grounds’’ for family‑violence risk and to implement a safety plan is capacious but vague: regulators and courts will need to define screening thresholds, documentation standards, and the scope of ‘‘appropriate plans.’’ That raises professional‑liability issues (what if counsel misses risk indicators?) and confidentiality tensions (how much can a lawyer disclose when arranging safety supports?).
The relocation and parental‑alienation changes trade procedural clarity for contested fact‑finding. Limiting the use of parental‑alienation allegations protects survivors but will require courts to parse when allegations of interference are genuine, when they reflect defensive reporting, and when they are linked to violence—tasks that can deepen factual inquiries and increase the need for expert evidence.
Requiring both spouses’ agreement for certain direct child evidence narrows unilateral access but may also block a child’s voice where one parent refuses consent despite independence or maturity. Finally, the presumption that an intending mover will relocate shifts litigation dynamics in ways that may disadvantage lower‑income caregivers who need to move for housing or employment unless courts carefully weigh those contextual factors.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.