Faculty of health sciences

When parents separate, decisions about children are often among the most contested aspects of the legal process. In cases involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), judges are often tasked with resolving disputes of extraordinary complexity as they try to balance children’s best interests and safety with parents’ rights to remain involved in their kids’ lives. In these types of cases, rulings about access to the children are about more than determining parenting schedules. Decisions shape whether children are protected and if abuse continues through the legal system itself. Bill C-223, the Keeping Children Safe Act, is Parliament’s attempt to address how Canadian courts navigate these tensions. Introduced in September 2025 by Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner, the bill proposes changes to the Divorce Act aimed at strengthening how courts address family violence during divorce and custody proceedings.  

Misused parental alienation claims

Research shows that accusations of parental alienation are sometimes used to undermine or silence parents who report abuse or coercive control. This dynamic disproportionately affects mothers. IPV survivor support groups and advocates have long raised concerns about the weaponization of parental alienation claims against mothers in cases involving IPV – especially against those who raise concerns about their children’s contact with an abusive parent. This dynamic often follows a familiar pattern – a mother experiencing IPV may seek to limit parenting time due to child safety concerns. In response, the other parent may allege parental alienation. When courts accept these allegations, the focus shifts away from abuse and toward the primary caregiver’s behaviour, which can then be interpreted as manipulation. In some cases, this has led to expanded or even court-ordered contact, including reunification interventions, despite children’s expressed fears or resistance to contact with the other parent.  

Requiring evidence, facts

Bill C-223 aims to address this by directing courts to rely on evidence-based understandings of coercive control, trauma and abuse dynamics rather than on the assumption that violence stops when partners separate or that children’s resistance to contact with one parent is always the result of influence from the other. Organizations like the National Association of Women and the Law and Battered Women’s Support Services have argued that the bill addresses well-established research findings that in cases where alienation is alleged and IPV has happened, protective mothers are often penalized for prioritizing their children’s safety. Limiting alienation claims, then, is not a denial that children can be harmed when one parent undermines their relationship with the other. Instead, it acts as a safeguard against post-separation abuse continuing through the legal process.  

Oversimplifying complex family situations

Despite support for the bill among advocacy groups, some legal scholars and family justice researchers have raised concerns about how it may limit judges’ ability to respond effectively. This is particularly the case in situations where one parent has genuinely undermined a child’s relationship with the other parent, even in the absence of IPV. Critics point out that when children resist contact with one parent, it’s often due to a mix of emotional, relational and environmental factors, including loyalty conflicts, emotional pressures or prolonged exposure to parental conflict or abuse – even if that abuse wasn’t directed at them. It is precisely because similar dynamics can arise in both abusive and non-abusive situations that critics argue judges require broad discretion to examine multiple possible explanations for a child’s resistance, including – in some cases – deliberate interference by a parent. This suggests that limiting reliance on alienation-style evidence could restrict how courts evaluate such complexity, raising concerns about how effectively high-conflict parenting disputes can be resolved. Critics of the bill aren’t defending or overlooking the historic misuse or weaponization of alienation claims. Instead, they question whether the bill risks replacing one flawed framework with another – one that may be poorly suited to ambiguous or less typical cases.  

Balancing protection and children’s voices

At the centre of debates over Bill C-223 is a broader question about what effective child protection should look like in family law. On one hand, the bill strengthens children’s voices and moves away from reducing their views as simply a product of parental influence. At the same time, there is value in maintaining judicial flexibility. Even though clearer legislation may reduce the misuse of claims like parental alienation, there is still risk when limiting the range of options available to judges faced with complex situations. Bill C-223 certainly reflects a positive shift in Canadian law towards trauma- and violence-informed approaches. It’s a clear effort to align legal frameworks with the research on abuse, coercive control and child well-being. But whether the bill ultimately achieves its intended goal will depend not only on its final wording, but also how courts interpret and apply its principles in practice. As debates over Bill C-223 continue, the question is not whether reform is needed, but how to develop legal frameworks that protect children from harm while also preserving the flexibility that is needed to respond to complex, highly individualized cases. Eden Hoffer, PhD Candidate – Faculty of Health Sciences, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University and Kimberley T. Jackson, Associate Professor, Western University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.