Status of Women Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 122 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I would like to remind all members of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom.

Thank you in advance for your co‑operation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, November 27, 2023, the committee is continuing with its study of coercive behaviour.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I'd like to provide a trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and coercive control. This may be triggering to viewers with similar experiences. If you feel distressed or need help, please advise the clerk. For all witnesses and for all members of Parliament, it is important to recognize that these are very difficult decisions and discussions. Let's try to be as compassionate in our conversations as possible.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

For today's panel, we have three witnesses appearing as individuals via video conference. They have chosen to remain anonymous. They will be referred to as Witness 1, Witness 2, and Witness 3. I would kindly ask all members to refer to each witness as such.

We also have, by video conference from Ottawa Victim Services, Heidi Illingworth, executive director.

Witness 1, please begin. You have up to five minutes.

Thank you.

[Witness 1, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I would like to express my deepest thanks to all of you for your commitment to the well-being of Canadian women and girls and for the opportunity to speak today.

I am a physician. My work is predominantly in cancer care. Like cancer, coercive behaviour is rampant in our society, often covert and insidious. It affects women of all races, socio-economic statuses, ages and religions.

I've been in the family court system for five years and counting, with reports of coercive behaviour made by my children and me, countered by false allegations of parental alienation made by my ex-husband. Perpetrators of coercive behaviour not only deny violence; they often distract from their behaviour by painting themselves as the victim. One common method to do so is accusing the mother of parental alienation, or PA. PA is defined as the “wilful attempts by one parent to prevent or undermine a child's relationship with the other parent”.

In April 2023, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, wrote the following:

...the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe.

Adding to the trauma of alienation claims is the intensive deprogramming therapy in which children are subsequently forced to participate in an attempt to repair their relationship with the unsafe parent. This therapy can be administered in a variety of forms and goes by many names. It can be called reunification, reintegration or reconciliation. Even the words “family therapy”, when in the hands of certain therapists, are a benign-appearing name given to veiled reunification therapy. This therapy is not regulated and has no supporting literature indicating that it is effective. In fact, literature and numerous testimonies from youth outline its short- and long-term negative psychological consequences.

The therapy can be in the form of frequent outpatient sessions. In some instances, children are sent against their will to a multi-day overnight camp, such as Family Bridges in Canada. Some are even trafficked across the border by transport agents to camps in the U.S., such as Turning Points for Families in New York. In her report, the special rapporteur called on states to ban the use of parental alienation in family court and to ban all forms of reunification therapy. Bans on reunification therapy and camps are currently in effect in many American states.

The tactics used in reunification therapy are similar to those used in conversion therapy. Threats, intimidation, verbal abuse and forceful denial of reality are used in an attempt to deprogram youth. Conversion therapy is banned in Canada, yet reunification therapy remains a common “solution” ordered in family court. If it is not ordered, mothers are often pressured into consenting to it for fear that the court will impose a custody reversal upon them if they do not.

As a physician, I find it staggering that the Canada Health Act is overridden and children's consent to treatment is dispensed with in order to force a relationship between a child and their unsafe parent through reunification therapy. Further, children are not being believed and their wishes are disregarded, which violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Because my ex-husband was able to convince the custody assessor and reunification therapists that I demonstrated alienating behaviours, my children experienced two rounds of this therapy. I witnessed these therapists dismissing disclosures of abuse by telling the children they were not remembering events correctly, and telling them to forget about it and move on. Excuses were made for the unsafe parent in order to normalize or minimize their actions. Some examples include the following: “Your memory isn't very good when you're emotional; that's not how it happened” or “These are mistakes; Dad was just stressed that day.”

The more the child attempts to advocate for themselves, the more intense and aggressive the therapy becomes and the more the child's behaviour is framed as pathological, disordered, defiant and a manifestation of alienation.

Regarding recommendations, criminalizing coercive behaviour is, in theory, an excellent step forward. However, the law has to be worded in such a way that it will protect mothers who are accused of alienation. Supporters of alienation will work hard to have it framed as a form of coercive behaviour. The consequences for mothers can be catastrophic, as they will be fined or jailed for parental alienation.

If we eradicate the remedies imposed by the court, such as reunification therapy, custody reversals and no-contact orders, allegations of alienation will dissipate, as the allegations will no longer result in financially and emotionally abusive outcomes for mothers and children.

Numerous other valuable changes can be made. Standardized risk assessments should be performed by custody assessors, CAS workers and clinicians involved in these cases. Children's wishes should be respected. Mothers' and children's accounts of abuse should be believed. There should be access to children's lawyers so that children can have their wishes and experiences directly communicated to the court.

I ask for legislation that aligns with the UN recommendations, specifically to ban the use of alienation in family court and to ban all forms of reunification therapy and camps.

Thank you very much for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Witness 2, you have up to five minutes.

Thank you.

[Witness 2, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I'm an 18-year-old Canadian woman and a survivor of coercive behaviour and reunification therapy. I hope to provide some insight into the broad spectrum of what Canadian youth experience under the black cloud of the preferred parent being accused of parental alienation in family court custody disputes.

Within a few days of being told about my parents' separation, my sibling and I were brought to reunification therapy to repair our relationship with our dad. When asked about our experiences at home, we communicated that our dad was absent throughout our lives and therefore a stranger to us. When he was around, he was easily angered and emotionally abusive towards us and our mother. There are many examples, but some include yelling in my face, swearing at me, calling me names, making homophobic comments to me, listening in on my conversations, sneaking up and startling me, monitoring me, forcing affection, threatening me and videoing me without my consent.

My sibling and I avoided interaction with him because of how unpredictable his behaviour was, how nervous he made us and how much he scared us. In the reunification therapy sessions, we watched our dad inappropriately flirt with the therapist and lie repeatedly. As a result, the therapist denied our reality. When we described emotionally abusive episodes, our dad told the therapist they didn't happen. The therapist told us that we needed to think of things from our dad's perspective, that we weren't remembering things correctly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Excuse me, Witness 2, could I kindly ask you to slow your pace down a little so the translation can be a bit easier?

Thank you.

[Witness 2]

Sure.

We were told that our dad was stressed and made a few mistakes, that our boundaries were incorrect, that we needed to be educated because we didn't understand relationship boundaries, and that our thinking was disordered and distorted. The therapist also asked us to look into our dad's eyes and tell him that we loved him, because telling our dad that we loved him would make things better.

Overall, we were blamed and repeatedly told we needed to change our behaviour and perspective in order to make things better. We were ignored and consistently asked about our mom's reaction to the abusive events. I didn't understand at the time, but I later realized that this was an attempt to further the accusations of alienation against my mom.

My sibling and I tried to refuse to attend therapy, but we were told we had to go. We each had one session per week with the therapist—alone, together or with our dad—for one and a half hours. On top of this, we would soon be doing activities every weekend with the therapist and our dad for four hours without our mom present, such as baking, shopping, cooking and going on outings. When we asked how long we had to do this for, there was no conclusion date provided.

After many sessions, my sibling and I refused to continue to attend. We thought that was the end of the nightmare. Instead, we started a section 30 custody assessment. The situation was even worse. The assessor spoke with the reunification therapist to get her opinion. My sibling and I again described numerous abusive episodes. My dad painted himself as the victim, and the assessor believed his numerous lies. We were not believed, not listened to and made to feel as though we were the problem. We were told we needed to get over the past and stop thinking about those events because they didn't actually happen. The assessor told me that I had black-and-white thinking, and that I needed to stop being stubborn and change my thinking. The assessor also said that I was overly emotional, that my emotions were distorting my memory, that I was defiant, immature and closed-minded, and that I was at a high risk of mental health issues if I did not have a relationship with my father.

I asked to have a lawyer represent us and directly express our wishes, but a judge would not allow it because we had an assessor involved in our case. We then had to start a second round of reunification therapy. This time, it was at an office over an hour away from our home and school. It was the same. We were told we were the problem.

The sessions with both therapists and the assessor were stressful and traumatic, against a background of the trauma I experienced with my dad for years beforehand. We then had to restart more sessions with the assessor because she wanted to assess how things with our dad were progressing in reunification therapy. Things were worse.

My dad's behaviour didn't change, and he was not held accountable by anyone throughout this process. Not one person in my life—

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Witness 2, I'm terribly sorry that I need to interrupt you.

I need you to slow down your pace a little more for the translation. If you can speak up a bit, as well, that would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[Witness 2]

Of course. Is there anything I should repeat?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

No, just continue from where you were.

Thank you.

[Witness 2]

Not one person in my life would characterize me as being dishonest or having disordered thinking, except for the assessor and the reunification therapists.

I, again, asked to speak to a judge. We were told we could speak to the judge, but only after his trial decision was made. I found that very upsetting, given that we wanted the opportunity to tell the judge that my dad was lying to everyone throughout this process—to tell him what had actually happened in our lives.

My entire high school career and adolescence have been tainted by these experiences. My mom being accused of parental alienation silenced her. It also silenced my sibling and me. It stripped us of our rights and access to resources to help us.

Ignoring children's reports of abuse, disregarding children's wishes regarding parenting schedules, and forcing children into reunification therapy and camps abuse Canadian children and violate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I'm asking this committee to please protect the rights of young victims of coercive behaviour by creating legislation to ensure that a child's lawyer or an abuse-informed clinician is granted, in order to have their experiences and wishes directly presented to the court. In addition, please create legislation to ban parental alienation accusations in family courts and all forms of reunification therapy and camps. The well-being of Canadian children depends on it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much, Witness 2.

Witness 3, you have up to five minutes.

Thank you.

[Witness 3, As an Individual]

Thank you so much.

As a mother who was labelled as an alienator, I was also labelled as someone who had engaged in coercive control by the family court.

The criminalization of coercive control on its own standing would put those whom it is meant to protect at greater risk if the use of parental alienation and its associated remedies remain an option to family court judges.

It has now been 1,033 days since I've had contact with my child because of the use of parental alienation as a legal strategy. No contact means no visits, no cards, no celebrating holidays, no phone calls.

My judgment stated an immediate reversal of custody, inclusive of a police enforcement clause. The non-preferred parent was granted exclusive custody, sole decision-making and an indefinite restraining order, and ordered to participate in a second round of reunification therapy. This order is in direct contradiction of the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, who recommended that I should have sole custody and decision-making power.

In 2020, Professor Joan Meier published empirical evidence that alienation claims are effective in undermining mothers and double their rate of losing custody of their children. Our family's judgment further legitimizes this study and is consistent with her findings as published in the Journal of Child Custody regarding children who have been forcibly removed from their preferred parent: “The children in these cases suffered from anxiety, depression, PTSD, self-harm, and suicidality, and some repeatedly ran away, thus exposing themselves to further harm of homelessness and sexual trafficking.”

The content from this journal has now become my child's reality. My child's clinical impression, as documented by the Hospital for Sick Children and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, is aligned with the Journal of Child Custody regarding children who have been forcibly removed from their preferred parent.

Since the reversal of custody and no contact for almost three years, my child has been diagnosed with suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression and self-harm. Prior to the reversal of custody, my child did not have any concerns with mental health. Once again, the details of my case align with the Journal of Child Custody, as my child has also run away from school and home. Every time, she has been retraumatized, and her cries for help have been met with assault, forcible confinement and punishment.

The typical outcome in family court cases like mine is that the preferred parent is erased from the child's life. The remedies associated with parental alienation are hypocritical. In order to repair the relationship between the child and the non-preferred parent, they completely remove the preferred parent. They stop any and all contact immediately with the preferred parent, family members and friends, and even change schools, doctors and physicians.

Another implication for children affected by the pseudoscience of parental alienation is that all resources put in place to assist children, such as the children's aid societies, Ontario children's lawyers, clinicians, school social workers and mental health practitioners become null and void when there are accusations of parental alienation. Not one of the above agencies has made any attempt to help my child. As a non-preferred parent presents the court order, any concerns for the child's well-being, mental health or life are disregarded.

Accusations of parental alienation can be as simple as the preferred parent not having pictures of the non-preferred parent in the common areas of their home, the children not smiling in pictures taken with the non-preferred parent or the children not telling the non-preferred parent that they love them, and the preferred parent is alienating by not forcing the children to do so. This applies to physical affection. The preferred parent has to force the children to hug the non-preferred parent; otherwise, this is seen as alienation.

Clinical documents demonstrate that my child's views and preferences have remained the same, to be in the primary care of her mother. School and medical reports are consistent that my child is intelligent, mature and a top achiever, yet her views and preferences are still not respected.

Children are the ultimate victims in this process that is imposed upon them by a judge who follows the pseudoscience of alienation and all the unethical and traumatizing remedies associated with it.

In conclusion, I recommend that the Canadian government adopt the recommendations of the UN special rapporteur and NAWL. I additionally recommend the removal of the family court's ability to order custody reversals, no contact orders, reunification therapies in all forms and the use of transport agents.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Our last witness for this afternoon will be Ms. Illingworth, for up to five minutes.

[Heidi Illingworth, Executive Director, Ottawa Victim Services]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to address the committee.

I want to thank the three witnesses who spoke before me just now for their very powerful statements.

I'm here today representing Ottawa Victim Services, a community-based agency that's mandated to provide 24-7 crisis intervention support to victims of crime and tragic circumstances across the city of Ottawa. In 2023-24, we served 4,292 clients, of whom 1,287 were survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence, which is about 30% of our caseload. Our clients regularly disclose many forms of coercive and controlling behaviours by their intimate partners, including isolation, intimidation, monitoring, restricting access to financial resources, emotional abuse and threats, and other forms of psychological manipulation, which undermine their autonomy and self-worth. In our daily work on the front lines, we do see the need for a criminal law response to coercive control.

Currently, there are offences in the Criminal Code that are used to respond to situations of domestic and intimate partner violence, but these offences were designed to respond to the problem of men's public violence against other men. Canada lacks specific and clear legislation outlining what abuse is in the context of intimate or private relationships. In my view, there has been a deliberate failure on the part of the state to recognize private violence that occurs in the domestic context for the epidemic that it is today. This is largely because it is a gendered issue negatively affecting women, children and gender-diverse folks. The law does not currently reflect victims' lived realities or the real nature of harm, as you just heard, because it fails to include many aspects of abuse in the intimate context. I do believe that a shift is needed in order to significantly impact how the state responds to domestic violence in Canada.

I think we can make a difference by, first, broadening the definition of abuse. Our existing laws focus on physical violence or threats of physical harm. Coercive control includes a range of behaviours, such as psychological manipulation, isolation and financial control, which can be just as damaging but aren't captured by existing laws. By criminalizing coercive control, the legal system would recognize and address these forms of abuse and provide a broader scope of protection to victims who may not have experienced physical harm but are often paralyzed by fear from the psychological abuse and manipulation of their partners.

I also think what is really important and really needed is a cultural shift. We need to start thinking about coercive control as a serious issue rather than as a minor, private or normal aspect of relationships. Intimate partner violence is an epidemic, and we need to take steps to fully address it. Criminalization will help to change public perceptions, reduce stigma around seeking help and better define what is abuse and what is a healthy relationship.

Also, it's really critical that we look at early intervention. Criminalizing coercive control could lead to earlier intervention by the authorities. We want to be able to intervene, as service providers, before behaviours escalate to physical violence. We can prevent more severe abuse and provide support to victims earlier. This is really key to the prevention of femicide in Canada. Many domestic homicide reviews and academic research in the U.K., Canada, Australia and the U.S.A. have identified coercive control as a significant precursor in many cases of domestic homicide. Coercive control often precedes, accompanies or escalates into more severe forms of violence, including intimate partner homicide. The recent CKW inquest into the murder of three women in Lanark County, Ontario, recommended the following in recommendation 85: “Include 'coercive control', as defined in the Divorce Act, as a criminal offence on its own or as a type of assault under s. 265 of the Criminal Code.”

I cannot emphasize this enough: Coercive control is a warning sign. Numerous studies have found that coercive control is a common feature in the histories of domestic homicide cases. Victims often experience prolonged periods of psychological abuse, manipulation and control before the situation escalates to violence or homicide.

I want to make a couple of recommendations today and echo the words of the three witnesses before me.

As presented to you by the National Association of Women and the Law, we know that many victims of intimate partner violence do not go to the police. However, those who have children will interact with the law in the context of family law. Abusers are known to continue their violence and control post-separation in the form of judicial violence. Therefore, it's important to also address coercive control in family law. Specifically, we echo the calls of NAWL for the committee to recommend that the Government of Canada amend the Divorce Act to ban parental alienation accusations from being used in family court.

I would also like to echo the recommendation made to you earlier by the Canadian Center for Women's Empowerment, which is to have the government recognize the gendered aspect of domestic violence and how coercive control is deeply rooted in gender inequality. We recommend increased funding of services to adequately protect and support victim-survivors before and after separation. We recommend a holistic framework that can adequately support and protect women in abusive situations, especially with respect to different intersectional realities, such as newcomers, immigrants, gender-diverse people, Black, indigenous and other persons of colour, disabled persons, seniors, and young women, who are all at an increased risk of violence.

Lastly, we recommend that economic and financial abuse must also be included within the context of coercive control and include post-separation abuse in considerations if we are moving toward a coercive control offence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for your opening remarks.

At this point, we will move to our first round of questions.

Ms. Ferreri, we'll begin with you.

You have six minutes.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much to our witnesses today for being here on our study on coercive control. Your voice matters and we're very happy to have you here.

I will start with Ms. Illingworth.

Ms. Illingworth, thank you for the work that you do.

When we see an increase of 50% in crime, that means 50% more victims. I think that's a key thing that people forget when they're looking at a lot of the stats that we see.

One thing you said before was, “Our findings were that the CVBR [the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights] has largely failed to empower and support those harmed by crime. I called for a Parliamentary review of the Act and issued 15 recommendations to the federal government for legislative and administrative measures.”

What response have you received from the government?

[Heidi Illingworth]

I am no longer the ombudsperson for victims of crime, so you would have to speak to the new ombudsperson about what is happening.

As far as I know, the recommendations that I made have not been actioned as of yet.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Yes, I appreciate that you're no longer the ombudsman.

When you were, was there any response from the government at all on your recommendations?

[Heidi Illingworth]

There was not.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Were you given a reason why?

[Heidi Illingworth]

The report was received, as far as I know. We had been calling for the review of that legislation, which was supposed to happen after five years. I understand it may be coming, but I don't really have information to answer that.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I'm sure that must have felt fairly frustrating, for all the work that you're doing.

I want to go to Witness 3.

For those watching at home, the identification is obviously very confidential today as we navigate these difficult situations.

Witness 3, I want to thank you for testifying. You said you are a mom. Can you say again, please, the number of days that you've been alienated from your child?

[Witness 3]

Yes. It's been 1,033 days as of today.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

In all that time, you haven't seen your child. Is that correct?

[Witness 3]

I have had no contact, no phone calls and no video calls. There's a restraining order. I'm only allowed to speak to doctors and her teacher.