Bill 12 rewrites large parts of the Children's Law Act and the Family Law Act to remove the language of "custody" and "access" and replace it with three distinct concepts: decision‑making responsibility, parenting time and contact. It defines those terms, codifies a broad, prioritized best‑interests test (with a detailed definition of family violence), creates duties for parties, legal advisers and courts, and requires parenting plans to be submitted with orders unless the court rejects them as contrary to the child's best interests.
Operational changes matter: the bill prescribes relocation and change‑of‑residence notice regimes (including a 60‑day notice), shifts burdens of proof in certain relocation contexts, sets short windows and expedited hearings for parenting‑time enforcement, and instructs courts how to recognize or supersede extra‑provincial orders. These are substantive tools that will change litigation strategies, mediation practice, and enforcement for parents, counsel, social workers and peace officers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces custody/access with defined concepts of decision‑making responsibility, parenting time and contact; requires courts to consider only the child's best interests (with enumerated factors and a family‑violence framework); mandates duties for parties, lawyers and judges; and establishes notice, burden and hearing rules for relocations and enforcement.
Who It Affects
Family law practitioners and mediators in Newfoundland and Labrador, judges and court staff in the Supreme and Provincial Courts, the Department of Social Supports and Well‑Being and peace officers who enforce orders, plus parents, non‑parental applicants (grandparents, others), and service providers who run family justice programs.
Why It Matters
The bill modernizes statutory language, elevates family‑violence risk as an express factor, and locks in procedural mechanics (certification requirements on filings, 60‑day relocation notices, deadlines and expedited enforcement hearings) that will change how counsel advise clients and how courts manage family matters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill restructures Part III of the Children's Law Act and parallel provisions in the Family Law Act to replace the long‑standing "custody" and "access" vocabulary with three separate, defined concepts: decision‑making responsibility (who decides significant matters like health and education), parenting time (time a child spends in the care of a parent or person standing in the place of a parent), and contact (time or communication with non‑parents). That change is not merely cosmetic: the legislation retools existing powers and remedies around those specific labels and requires courts to translate older custody/access orders into the new categories at transition.
Substantively, the bill narrows the rule for judicial decision‑making to "only the best interests of the child," but it also expands and prioritizes the factors a court must consider — notably giving primary weight to physical, emotional and psychological safety and listing detailed considerations for family violence (including coercive control, financial abuse and exposure of children). The court must account for relationships with parents, siblings and other important people, the child's views, cultural and Indigenous heritage, and the plans and ability of adults to care for the child.On procedure and enforcement, the bill requires parties and legal advisers to take certain duties seriously: filings must include certification statements that the filer knows their duties to protect children from conflict, provide accurate information, and consider family dispute resolution where appropriate.
The court likewise must check for pending protection or criminal proceedings and may inquire or review available lawful records. For enforcement, the Act provides non‑punitive remedies for wrongful denial of parenting time (compensatory time, reimbursement of reasonable expenses, supervision, mediation) and imposes tight timelines — applications to enforce are time‑limited and are to be dealt with quickly.Relocation and changes in residence receive detailed regimes.
A person intending to relocate a child must give written notice (including an address, proposed relocation date and a proposal for continuing parenting/contact) at least 60 days before the move; recipients can object or apply to court within set timeframes. The bill sets out the factors the court must weigh when authorizing relocation, and it allocates the burden of proof differently depending on whether the parties previously shared substantially equal time or whether one party had the vast majority of time.
Courts may apportion travel costs and may disapply notice requirements where family violence risks exist.Finally, the bill clarifies recognition and enforcement of extra‑provincial orders (recognize unless narrow exceptions apply), sets grounds for a provincial court to supersede an out‑of‑province order (material change or risk of serious harm), and contains transitional rules mapping existing custody/access orders and separation agreements into the new framework so pending matters and past orders continue to operate under the new labels unless a court orders otherwise.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A person proposing to relocate a child must give written notice at least 60 days before the expected relocation and include the new address, expected date, and a proposal for how parenting time/contact could continue (s.47.1).
When relocation is contested, the court shifts the burden of proof: if parties previously shared substantially equal time, the relocating party must prove the move is in the child's best interests; if one party already had the vast majority of time, the opposing party must prove the move is not in the child's best interests (s.47.2(4)‑(6)).
An application to enforce wrongful denial or failure to exercise parenting time/contact must be filed within 30 days of the alleged event and, where filed, must be heard within 10 days after service (s.41(7)‑(9)).
Parties and legal advisers must include a certification in every initiating or responsive court filing that they are aware of and have complied with statutory duties (parties certify duties under s.39.1(5); legal advisers certify compliance under s.39.2(2)).
A parenting plan submitted by the parties must be included in an order unless the court decides the plan is not in the child's best interests; the court may modify a submitted plan and include the modified plan in its order (s.33.3).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates decision‑making responsibility, parenting time and contact; defines key terms
These sections remove the old "custody" and "access" headings and introduce precise statutory definitions — decision‑making responsibility (for major decisions like health and education), parenting time (care periods for parents/stand‑in parents) and contact (visits/communications for non‑parents). Practical effect: every existing custody/access reference in law is mapped to the new labels (the Act provides conversion rules) and future orders will be framed around allocation of decision authority versus time and communication rights.
Habitual residence, serious‑harm exception and expanded best‑interests test
The bill sets a habitual‑residence threshold for provincial jurisdiction and preserves a serious‑harm exception allowing courts to act when a child is at risk even if not habitually resident. The best‑interests clause instructs courts to consider only the child's best interests, gives primary weight to safety and well‑being, and enumerates factors including relationship strength, child views, cultural background and family violence — with a separate list of how to assess family‑violence impact.
Detailing what parenting and contact orders may include and requiring parenting plans
The court can allocate decision‑making responsibility for all or specific domains, set parenting time schedules, authorize/prohibit relocation, require supervised transfers or prohibit removal from geographic areas. Contact orders cover non‑parental communication. Critically, the court must include a parenting plan provided by the parties unless it finds the plan not in the child's best interests; it may also modify and adopt a changed plan — elevating negotiated agreements into enforceable court orders.
Mandatory duties for parties, legal advisers and courts; certification on filings
The Act imposes affirmative duties: parties must protect children from conflict, attempt family dispute resolution where appropriate, and provide accurate information; legal advisers must encourage dispute resolution and inform clients of family justice services; courts must check for protection or criminal proceedings affecting safety. Documents starting or responding to proceedings must include certifications from parties and counsel confirming awareness (and, for counsel, compliance) with these duties, turning procedural filings into a point of professional responsibility.
Short, practical enforcement remedies and supervisory options
For wrongful denial or failure to exercise parenting time/contact the court can order compensatory time (capped at the time lost), supervision, reimbursement of reasonable expenses and appointment of a mediator. Applications must be made promptly (30‑day filing limit) and the court is required to hear them quickly (within 10 days of service). Courts may direct supervision by consent and, where a child is unlawfully withheld, may authorize apprehension and involve peace officers and social workers to facilitate return.
60‑day notice regime, objection pathways, and burdens for authorization
The relocation regime requires at least 60 days written notice, content of notice (date, address, proposal for ongoing parenting/contact), and provides an objection mechanism (written objection filed with the court or an application). The court must consider statutory factors (reasons, impact, time spent with child, compliance with notice and other agreements) and shifts evidentiary burdens depending on prior time‑sharing patterns. It may also apportion travel costs and can waive notice requirements where family violence risk exists.
Recognizing and, in narrow cases, superseding out‑of‑province orders
The court will recognize extra‑provincial parenting/contact orders except where specific defects exist (notice, opportunity to be heard, failure to apply best‑interests, public policy or lack of jurisdiction). The statute permits the provincial court to supersede such orders on material change or where the child faces serious harm, subject to habitual‑residence and connection tests — giving provincial courts a structured way to intervene while still deferring to out‑of‑province decisions in most cases.
Converts existing custody/access orders and pending proceedings into the new framework
Transitional rules treat pre‑existing custody as simultaneously granting both decision‑making responsibility and parenting time and translate access into parenting time or contact depending on parental status. Pending matters transfer into the reformed Act automatically unless a court orders otherwise, and certain appointments by will have limited post‑death effectiveness subject to a 90‑day rule for applications.
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 in family proceedings — The law centralizes a child‑focused best‑interests test, explicitly prioritizes safety and requires courts to weigh family violence and cultural/Indigenous considerations, which gives judges a clearer statutory compass.
- Parents who negotiate sensible parenting plans — The statutory requirement to include agreed parenting plans (unless contrary to the child's best interests) converts mediated or negotiated arrangements into enforceable court orders, increasing the value of settlement and mediation.
- Family dispute resolution professionals and mediators — The Act formally encourages FDR, requires counsel to inform clients about services, and creates demand for mediation, collaborative law and parenting plan drafting.
- Non‑parent applicants (grandparents, others with standing) — The separate contact order mechanism clarifies a route for non‑parents to seek enforceable contact without confusing parent‑level decision‑making responsibilities.
- Court users seeking swift enforcement — The 30‑day filing window and requirement that enforcement applications be heard within 10 days create an expedited remedy for recent denials of parenting time, providing quicker relief than general civil processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Litigants (especially low‑resource parents) — Certification requirements, faster hearing schedules and mandatory disclosure increase compliance burdens and procedural costs; parties may need counsel or mediation services to meet duties and timelines.
- Legal advisers — Lawyers must proactively advise clients about FDR, include statutory certifications on filings, and face elevated professional responsibilities and potential exposure if they fail to comply or certify improperly.
- Courts and registry staff — The statutory duties to check for other proceedings, enforce short timelines, and incorporate parenting plans into orders will increase administrative and judicial workload and require updated court processes and training.
- Department of Social Supports and Well‑Being and social workers — The Act contemplates social‑worker assistance for apprehension and supervised returns and expands potential involvement in supervision; that may require operational resources and coordination with police.
- Relocating parents — The 60‑day notice, evidentiary burdens in contested cases and potential requirement to share travel costs or defend the move in court introduce planning and possible financial obligations for parents who move.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill's central dilemma is balancing a policy preference for negotiated, child‑focused resolution against the need for enforceable, expedited judicial remedies and safety protections: it encourages mediation and parenting plans while simultaneously imposing hard timelines, evidentiary burdens and certification duties that advantage well‑resourced parties and require courts and agencies to absorb new procedural work — all while trying to keep vulnerable children safe from family violence.
The bill attempts to marry a strong statutory commitment to out‑of‑court resolution with enforceable court mechanisms, but that combination creates practical tensions. Encouraging family dispute resolution while requiring parties and lawyers to certify attempts and duties may favor represented, better‑resourced parents who can pay for mediation or legal advice; unrepresented litigants could struggle with certification mechanics or the new procedural timelines.
The certification requirement elevates the risk of contested findings about who complied with duties and could produce new challenges around sanctions or credibility without expressly prescribing remedies for false certifications.
Relocation burdens create strategic incentives. The shifted burdens (depending on prior time‑sharing) aim to reflect stability and caregiving patterns but can invite litigation tactics — parties may argue about whether time was "substantially equal" or "vast majority," produce competing evidentiary records, and rapidly escalate disputes into urgent relocation hearings.
The bill also preserves a broad "serious harm" exception and makes family violence an express primary consideration; however, courts will need operational guidance to balance protecting safety with enabling meaningful parenting time. The statute allows courts to waive notice where family violence risk exists, but implementing safe, confidential notice processes and determining when to dispense with notice will require careful judicial practice and agency coordination.
Finally, the interaction with extra‑provincial orders and the federal Divorce Act adds complexity. The Act defers in many situations to habitual‑residence rules and recognizes out‑of‑province orders unless narrow defects exist, yet it also empowers provincial courts to supersede orders on material change or serious harm.
That dual approach preserves provincial autonomy but raises predictable jurisdictional conflict risks that will require careful case‑by‑case management and, in cross‑border child disputes, coordination with federal and international norms (for example, Hague Convention considerations where applicable).
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.