Evidence of meeting #40 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Doly Begum Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
I want to follow up. In terms of parental manipulation or interference, how can we ensure that children are protected from harmful allegations while still allowing judges to consider relevant evidence when determining their best interests?
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Judges should look at all the relevant evidence when they're making their decision.
I'm someone who covered criminal court as a journalist for more than 20 years. I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms.
I have a lot of respect for the judicial system and for judges, but our job as legislators is to set parameters over what they can and cannot consider. However, if there's evidence of family violence, for example, it is our job as legislators to put parameters around that and say that you can't consider parental alienation allegations in the context of family violence.
Liberal
Doly Begum Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
I want to end by saying thank you so much for bringing this forward and for advocating for survivors and for children and their best interests.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much.
Madame DeBellefeuille, you have two and a half minutes.
Please go ahead.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hepfner, I also want to thank you for your testimony. It confirms that, if we conduct interviews, especially as parliamentarians, we find that everyone has their own story. I am among those who believe that parental alienation exists, that it is not necessarily gendered and that it affects fathers as well as mothers.
What matters, and what brings us together today, is finding a way to draft legislation that protects children while also ensuring that fathers and mothers do not lose their relationship with their children because of a bill that may be overly restrictive.
On that note, your bill repeals paragraph 16(3)(c), which prohibits consideration of parental alienation. The question is, how will a non-violent parent who really is the victim of parental alienation be able to protect their bond with their child? Does your bill prevent that or allow it? This is unclear to us. You're telling us about your bill and you're familiar with the proposed amendments, but we're not.
Let me put it this way: Knowing that paragraph 16(3)(c) prohibits consideration of parental alienation, how can a non-violent parent who is genuinely a victim of alienation prevent their bond with their child from being severed? What protection is available to such a parent?
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
In this bill, if there were evidence that there's absolutely no family violence, then the judges could consider parental alienation. I want judges to have all the evidence before them to be able to make good decisions. I want them to stop falling for the myths and stereotypes that are often found in courts now. They should be able to hear all the evidence before they make their decisions.
I agree with you that family law cases are really complicated and really traumatic and each case is different. I want to support judges in making good decisions based on the evidence before them.
Liberal
October 22nd, 2026 / 8:55 a.m.
Conservative
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you.
Through you, Chair, I first of all want to say thank you to my colleague for her very personal story and for defending the fathers who have found the court systems to be not very favourable to their situations and to the many families that have been separated due to false allegations and through parental alienation.
I myself have a very personal story. I'm not willing to share it today, but I need to say that it ended in tragedy, and our son is no longer with us. I'll leave it at that.
I want to look more at the summary of your bill. It says that the courts would “assess the impact of coercive control on a parent-child relationship”.
Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? Are you talking about coercive control by one spouse against the other and the effect it has on the child, or are you also talking about coercive control exercised directly by a parent against a child?
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I'm not sure I perfectly understand the question. This issue first arose for me when I was a member of the status of women committee and we were studying coercive control. To me, the misuse of parental alienation was an extension of coercively controlling relationships after a divorce. A coercive, controlling person doesn't stop trying to control the relationship if one partner leaves. That's why I was trying to incorporate coercive control into the legislation.
I will also say that judges don't need to use this parental alienation allegation to stop a parent who's doing bad things like the one.... They can order a parent to stop denigrating the other parent. If the parent, after several tries, doesn't stop denigrating the other parent, the court can throw the parent in jail. It has a lot of discretion and a lot of things that it can look at. It doesn't have to use parental alienation. Judges can use the evidence before them, and they have a lot of tools in their tool kit.
I'm concerned about the explosion in the use of parental alienation in cases and the fact that it's so often misused. I don't want to take away from anybody who's had experiences like the ones we have today. I think they're absolutely valid.
Conservative
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you.
I want to go on because I don't have a lot of time to ask questions.
Your bill would also allow the court, in certain circumstances, to hear directly from a child about the child's views and preferences. If one parent has been coercing that child against the other parent, how does the judge distinguish between the child's independently held views and views that have been shaped by coercion, intimidation or deliberate manipulation?
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I have taken that out of the amended version of the bill because it was controversial. The intent was to hear from children, because I heard over and over again from kids who had gone through the divorce process that nobody listened to them. It was as if they were kept out of the whole process. Even when they made submissions to a court that they had experienced abuse, they weren't believed. The court system was more concerned about allowing access to both parents than protecting the child.
The intent behind that was really to allow children's voices to be more often heard and considered during the divorce process.
Conservative
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Right now, the alienation claim is only allowed to be considered if the parent accused of the alienation had already been found by the court to have engaged in family violence. Can you explain that?
Conservative
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
I'm sorry. I don't know what questions to ask if there's an amended bill.
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I'm just trying to explain to you that I agree that those types of things were controversial, and I want to work with the committee to find a solution that is good. I'm trying to work with you in that way. I apologize if my answers aren't satisfactory.
Conservative
Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON
Okay. I'd like to continue with another question.
We can all agree that a child's emotional and psychological well-being should be a priority in the courts. If the courts are to consider domestic violence but not parental alienation, should there be more of an assessment of alleged coercive control and its impact on children? What happens to a child who is genuinely being turned against a safe parent, and what remedy remains if reunification therapy is prohibited?
Liberal
Lisa Hepfner Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
There are a lot of remedies that courts can use. As I've told you, they can make orders against a parent, and they can stop those behaviours. I have a problem with children being forced into reunification therapy.
At the status of women committee, we heard about a case in which children were sent across the border. They had to change custody several times to go across the border and see a therapist. It seemed as though they had gone through brainwashing techniques. It seemed like conversion therapy. There are a lot of examples of this happening to kids. I'm trying to prevent the misuse of those practices that I see happening in the system.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much. That concludes your time, Ms. Cody.
Ms. Gladu, please go ahead for five minutes.
Liberal
Marilyn Gladu Liberal Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Hepfner, for being here today.
As you know, I was also on the status of women committee, and we've heard a lot of testimony about parental alienation. I have two questions. I'm going to ask my questions first, and then I'll let you take the rest of the time to answer them.
In terms of parental alienation, there are two things that I think need to be addressed in the law that are not today. One of them is when there is evidence of abuse and that parent tries to make an argument in the courts that the other partner is deliberately alienating. The second one is malicious other partners who are going against a safe parent and really alienating, resulting in the kind of situation that Ms. Jansen shared, which is not a rare occurrence. It is a very common occurrence.
One of the difficulties I see in the bill is that Parliament can't tell the courts what they have to do. It can provide parameters around what they should look at. They should be looking at abuse. They should be looking at whether there's malicious prosecution, and they should be respecting the court's jurisdiction. Could you talk a bit about that?
My second question has to do with the equity with respect to the relocation issue. As I understand it, today the women are not allowed to take the children away from the father, but that same reciprocity is not there for the men. I think there should be equality in that. Does this bill address that?