Viewpoint—Bill C 22

This is a contemporary submission presented by Lynn Bentz, CGRA

“Please accept my submission regarding Bill C 22. My concerns are as follows:
“BILL C 22 DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE ESSENCE OF SOLE CUSTODY. SOLE CUSTODY IS DETRIMENTAL TO CHILDREN OF DIVORCE. Renaming a few terms will do nothing to provide meaningful support to Canada’s lost children of separation and divorce.

“Study after study, (Sanford Braver; Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1998; US Dept.of Health, March 26, 1999; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 58 April 1990; The Family in America, 1988; Sara McLanahan and Gary Sadefur-Growing Up With a Single Parent 1994; Applied Social Psychology Annual Growing up in a Divorced Family, 1987; Adolescent Suicide, John Wodarski and Pamela Harris, Social Work 1987), to name only a few, have shown that children are far better off when both parents are in their lives, yet the Canadian justice system continues to hold single parenthood in highest esteem, no matter how this parenthood is attained.

“BILL  C 22 LACKS THE WRITTEN WORDS TO MAKE EFFECTUAL CHANGES that will be of benefit to the children.  It lacks the written words to:

  • EMPOWER JUDGES to ensure that children receive equal and unimpeded access to both parents and grandparents after divorce. It appears that mothers will continue to be granted residential custody/responsibility 85 percent of the time.
  • EMPOWER JUDGES to punish false allegations, access denial, and parental alienation which is currently rampant in family court and INSTRUMENTAL in separating parent from child.
  • EMPOWER CHILDREN to make their wishes known.“BRINGING MORE JUDGES AND LAWYERS AND OTHER PAID EMPLOYEES INTO THE FRAY will do nothing to help children of divorce. It will only fatten the wallets of the extraneous. unimportant, so-called stakeholder.


  • Create enforceable court orders so children may know both parents equally (i.e., : presumptive equal parenting after separation and divorce).  Children of divorce should benefit from the same basic rights as children living in two-parent families.
  • Punish false allegations already liberally used to gain sole custody, as a deterrent to wasting court time and taxpayer dollars.
  • Give children the right to a meaningful, loving, supportive, stable relationship with their grandparents and extended families.
  • Equalize the financial burdens of the parents, as it is now, the removed parent is forced to pay more than their fair share.
  • Give financial support to the children. Bill C 22, as it is presently written, will continue to funnel more of that money into the divorce machine/industry.
  • Support the changes proposed in the For the Sake of the Children document.
  • Recognize the overwhelming results of public polls that strongly support equal Parenting.
  • Recognize the overwhelming position of opposition members of Parliament (and also Liberal members) who strongly support equal parenting.
  • Recognize the support of the media for equal parenting.
    “GRAVE DAMAGE has been done to Canadian families of divorce.  There has been no leadership forthcoming through the courts or through Parliament. Instead, Canadian families of divorce have been left to flounder at the feet of small pockets of special interest groups, which is costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year.“PICTURE A FORTRESS, in which lives the mother and children.  Then picture a deep moat—dug, prepared, and filled by members of the family court system. Now see the father standing alone, outside, on the far side of the moat. He is expected to look on in mute silence, providing the tribute which keeps the moat and fortress functioning. This is what Canadian justice has created.

    “A good father is made to walk through the valley of the shadow of death and fire for his child, which he willingly does, and then made to pay $ 45,000.00 for the exercise. This is what Canadian justice does to dads over and over again.

    “As a Canadian citizen, a paternal grandmother, and a member of several funded support groups, I have respectfully presented my concerns regarding the best interests of the children.”

    Sincerely, Lynn Bentz,  CGRA