A Child’s Voice Shouldn’t Begin the Day Litigation Does
A federal bill, an Alberta debate behind closed doors, and a Calgary initiative that refuses to wait for court.
A school counsellor asks a question that never makes it into affidavits:
“Do you have anything I can use with a 13-year-old who just found out they’re changing schools because of custody changes?”
Not a legal question. A human one.
And it exposes a brutal gap in the divorce ecosystem: we build systems to process parents, then act surprised when children absorb the emotional fallout with no tools and no language – until the day they’re pulled into the process as “evidence.”
That’s why a federal private member’s bill making headlines in Ontario – Bill C-223, the “Keeping Children Safe Act” – matters in Alberta and British Columbia, too. Because it’s aimed at the federal Divorce Act, and federal shifts don’t stay regional. They ripple.
But this bill isn’t just a tweak. It’s a referendum on a long-standing problem in family law:
Courts are good at measuring conflict. They’ve been slower at recognizing control.
What Bill C-223 is really doing: turning down the “shared parenting” autopilot
In the public imagination, divorce fights are about time: 50/50, weekends, holidays, who gets “primary.”
Bill C-223 tries to interrupt a dangerous shortcut: the assumption that shared parenting is the default “fair” outcome. It pushes the conversation away from symmetry and toward specificity – the idea that parenting arrangements should be shaped by the child’s reality, not the adult’s ideology.
That shift will feel threatening to some people because “shared parenting” has become more than an arrangement. It’s become a moral stance. A slogan.
But slogans don’t raise children. Environments do.
And in the cases that keep professionals awake at night, the argument isn’t about whether a child loves both parents. The argument is about whether one parent can safely exist in the orbit of the other without being managed, watched, punished, or psychologically cornered.
Coercive control: the violence that doesn’t need bruises to be real
Bill C-223’s most significant contribution may be its insistence on something the system still struggles to operationalize: coercive control – patterns of domination that can hide behind politeness, procedure, and “reasonable” messaging.
Coercive control is rarely a single incident. It’s a climate.
It can look like:
- constant monitoring dressed up as “co-parenting communication”
- financial pressure framed as “budgeting”
- threats that never get written down
- a child who becomes unusually careful, unusually compliant, unusually quiet
Here’s the problem family court runs into: coercive control often produces a parent who looks “difficult” and a parent who looks “calm.” And the system has historically treated calm as credibility.
But calm can be strategy. Calm can be practice. Calm can be power.
The bill’s boldest move might be the least talked about: mandatory screening
Bill C-223 would require legal advisers to assess risk of family violence and take steps toward safety planning and support when risk is present.
This is the kind of reform that can either save families – or become a new checkbox that creates false confidence.
Because screening isn’t magic. It works only if:
- professionals are trained to recognize patterns (not just incidents)
- clients can disclose without fear of legal blowback
- the system has referral pathways that actually exist, not theoretically exist
Otherwise, we risk a familiar Canadian compromise: better language, same outcomes.
And here’s the thought-provoking part: if we mandate screening without building capacity, we may end up doing something the system already does too well – documenting danger without reducing it.
“Give kids a voice” can’t mean “turn kids into witnesses”
C-223 also expands the idea that children’s views should be heard more directly in parenting disputes.
On its face, that sounds obviously right. Courts make long-range decisions about a child’s daily life. Why wouldn’t we want better information about what the child is experiencing?
But there’s a line we can’t pretend isn’t there:
Hearing a child is not the same as handing a child the burden of the decision.
Children can be coached. They can also be influenced without anyone explicitly “coaching” them – by tone, loyalty pressure, reward, fear, or the silent rule of don’t upset the parent you rely on most.
So the real question isn’t whether children should be heard. It’s whether the system can hear them without accidentally recruiting them.
Because once a child feels they must pick a side, they don’t just lose the argument. They lose a piece of themselves.
Alberta lawyers are already signalling: yes to the goals, caution on the mechanics
Here’s where the “Ontario bill” story becomes an Alberta story.
The Alberta Family Lawyers Association (AFLA) publicly acknowledged the importance of improving protections for children and survivors – and also flagged that parts of Bill C-223 raise concerns and require careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences.
That’s not opposition. That’s the legal profession doing what it’s supposed to do when a bill tries to fix a system: asking whether the fix will work outside a press conference.
Because once legislation lands in the real world, professionals will have to answer questions families don’t care about until it’s too late:
- What does screening look like in practice – fast, slow, inconsistent?
- What happens when risk is identified but resources are limited?
- How do we prevent “child voice” processes from becoming another battleground?
- How do we stop courts from confusing conflict with control – and vice versa?
AFLA’s stance matters because it reflects a broader truth about reform: the intention can be excellent and the implementation can still fail families.
Calgary’s Two Homes, One Heart: the local answer to a national blind spot
This is where Bill C-223 connects directly to what’s happening on the ground in Calgary.
Two Homes, One Heart was created because people working with families kept seeing the same pattern: resources for parents exist; resources for children living inside the tension are scarce. Kids were often left out of the conversation while internalizing adult conflict, misreading adult behaviour, and trying to “fix” things they cannot control.
That’s the same moral centre Bill C-223 is reaching for: children are not property to be split. They’re people living through an experience.
The difference is timing.
Bills move slowly. Childhood doesn’t.
Two Homes, One Heart is built around a simple, disruptive idea: children and teens need practical tools now – language, context, emotional literacy, boundaries – so their “voice” doesn’t show up for the first time inside litigation.
Because here’s the truth no one wants to admit: if a child’s first meaningful opportunity to be “heard” arrives through a court process, we have already failed them.
This is the connection Alberta and B.C. families should pay attention to. Whether Bill C-223 passes or not, the cultural direction is clear:
- coercive control is being taken more seriously
- child safety is being framed as central – not secondary
- children’s lived experience is being treated as information, not inconvenience
And in that environment, families don’t just need a legal pathway. They need strategy – especially where fear, grief, persuasion, power, and narrative all collide.
At Maes Divorce Consulting, we work with families who don’t just need a legal path-they need a strategy that accounts for human behaviour: fear, grief, power, persuasion, and the child’s reality in both homes.
Whether or not Bill C-223 passes, the direction is clear: courts are being pushed to take coercive control seriously, to be more deliberate about safety, and to treat children as people with lived experience-not property to be divided.
The families who do best in that environment won’t be the loudest. They’ll be the clearest.
And clarity-real clarity-is the most underrated form of protection.
Update (Feb. 4, 2026): The House of Commons (by unanimous consent) deemed Bill C-223 read a second time on division and referred it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for study.
Sources (quoted)
Alberta Family Lawyers Association (Dec. 8, 2025): “While we applaud the intent… several aspects cause us some concern… [the Bill] warrants informed analysis and careful drafting… avoiding unintended consequences.” (familycounsel.ca/uploads/1_1765855055.pdf)
Alberta Family Lawyers Association (Dec. 8, 2025): “AFLA is… more than 700 Alberta lawyers…” (familycounsel.ca/uploads/1_1765855055.pdf)
Parliament of Canada, Bill C-223 (first reading): “It is the duty… to consider… reasonable grounds… risk of family violence… [affecting]… ability… to negotiate a fair agreement.” (parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-223/first-reading)
Parliament of Canada, Bill C-223 (first reading): “If… risk… it is the duty… to… implement an appropriate plan… ensure… a safety plan… [and] inform… support services…” (parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-223/first-reading)
Parliament of Canada, Bill C-223 (first reading): “In allocating parenting time, the court shall not presume…” (no default equal/shared parenting). (parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-223/first-reading)
Parliament of Canada, Bill C-223 (first reading): “the court may obtain information or evidence from the child directly… to determine… views and preferences” (with conditions). (parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-223/first-reading)
Department of Justice Canada: “a pattern of abusive behaviours used to control or dominate…” (definition of coercive control). (justice.gc.ca/…/RSD_2023_MakingAppropriatebrochure-eng.pdf)
Two Homes, One Heart (Calgary / Find the Good): “kids and teens… left out of the conversation… internalizing adult conflict… without tools to make sense of it.” (twohomesoneheart.ca/about)
Two Homes, One Heart: “many… need practical, everyday tools… designed… for kids… and teens…” (twohomesoneheart.ca)
Two Homes, One Heart “Behind the scenes”: Andrea LaRochelle is “a conflict communication specialist… over 20 years…” (twohomesoneheart.ca/about)
Mike Pearson (InsideHalton.com / NiagaraThisWeek, Feb. 2, 2026) – article text provided by client: Bill C-223 would “eliminat[e] the assumption of shared parenting… [and] compel lawyers to screen for signs of family violence…”
House of Commons Journals (Feb. 4, 2026): “By unanimous consent… Bill C-223… be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.” (ourcommons.ca/Content/House/451/Journals/079/Journal079.PDF)
