Explaining Child Custody Determinations in Canada

Canadian Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 209-225

  Millar, Paul ^a   Goldenberg, Sheldon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010168244     PISSN: 08293201     EISSN: 19110227     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0829320100005792     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. James C. MacDonald “Historical Perspective of Custody and Access Disputes: A Lawyer's View in Custody Disputes: Evaluation and Intervention” in Ruth S. Parry et al., eds. (Toronto: Lexington, 1986) 10.
2. Jacob Goldstein & C. Abraham Fenster, “Anglo-American Criteria for Resolving Child Custody Disputes from the Eighteenth Century to the Present: Reflections on the Role of Socio-Cultural Change” (1994) 19:1 Journal of Family History 35.
3. 2&3 Victoria, 1839, c. 54 at 179–80.
4. Goldstein & Fenster, 2&3 Victoria 2 at 40.
5. Susan Crean, In the Name of the Fathers (Toronto: Amanita, 1988) at 23.
6. In the Name of the Fathers, at 21.
7. Jane Pulkingham, “Private Troubles, Private Solutions” (1994) 9:2 C.J.L.S. 87.
8. Thomas J. Abernath & Margaret E. Arcus, “The Law and Divorce in Canada” (1977) 26:4 Family Coordinator 409.
9. Divorce Act, R.S.C.1985, (2d supp.) c. 3, s. 16(10).
10. Department of Justice, Evaluation of the Divorce Act, Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (Canada: Bureau of Review, 1990).
11. Pierre Turcotte & Alain Bélanger, “Moving In Together: The Formation of First Common-Law Unions” (1997) winter, Canadian Social Trends 7 at 9, Statistics Canada Cat. No. 11–008-XPE.
12. Jean McBean, “The Myth of Maternal Preference in Child Custody Cases” in Kathleen E. Mahoney & Sheilah L. Martin, eds., Equality and Judicial Neutrality (Toronto: Carswell, 1987) 188.
13. Equality and Judicial Neutrality, at 189.
14. Susan Boyd, “Some Postmodernist Challenges to Feminist Analyses of Law, Family and State: Ideology and Discourse in Child Custody” (1991) 10:1 Law Can. J. Fam. L. 87.
15. Crean, Law Can. J. Fam. L. 5 at 37.
16. Department of Justice, Law Can. J. Fam. L. 10 at 104–05, Tables 4.21 & 4.23.
17. Law Can. J. Fam. L. at 44.
18. Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce” (1979) 88:5 Yale Law Journal 950.
19. Herbert Jacob, “The Elusive Shadow of the Law” (1992) 26:3 Law and Society Review 565.
20. Crean, Law and Society Review 5 at 107.
21. Law and Society Review, at 46.
22. Law and Society Review at 96.
23. Department of Justice, Law and Society Review 10 at 49.
24. Law and Society Review, at 54.
25. Law and Society Review, at 82.
26. Statistics Canada, Lone-Parent Families in Canada, Catalogue No. 89–522E, p.17
27. Statistics Canada, The Statistics Canada Work Accounts System, Catalogue no. 89–549-XPE at 23.
28. See Justice Canada, An Overview of the Research Program to Develop a Canadian Child Support Program by Finnie, Ross, Carolina Giliberti & Daniel Stripinis (1995) at 4.
29. Richard A. Warshak, “How Children Fare in Father-Custody Homes” (1993) 15:3 Family Advocate.38.
30. See also John W. Santrock & R. A. Warshak, “Father Custody and Social Development in Boys and Girls” (1979) 35:4 Journal of Social Issues 112.
31. Ross D. Parke, Fathers Cambridage, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) at 95.
32. Eleanor E. Maccoby & Carol N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974)
33. as cited by Arlene S. Skolnick, The Intimate Environment: Exploring Marriage and the Family New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996) at 197.
34. Anne-Marie Ambert, “Longitudinal Changes in Children's Behavior Toward Custodial Parents” (1984) 46:2 Journal of Marriage and the Family 463.
35. Most female lone parents are single due to separation or divorce. The rest are split roughly between never-married or widowed mothers, with widows more likely to have older children. See Bali Ram, New Trends in the Family (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1990) at 23.
36. Statistics Canada, Crowing Up in Canada: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Catalogue No. 89–550-MPE, no. 1, November 1996 at 89.
37. Skolnick, Crowing Up in Canada: National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 31 at 198.
38. Stephen J. Bahr et al., “Trends in Child Custody Awards: Has the Removal of Maternal Preference Made a Difference?” (1994) 28:2 Family Law Quarterly 247.
39. Frederick Lee (Ted) Morton, ed., Law, Politics and the Judicial Process in Canada, 2d ed., (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1992) at 80.
40. Department of Justice, Law, Politics and the Judicial Process in Canada 10 at 116, Table 4.26.
41. Since at least 1996, the seminars are no longer offered. Instead, the Canadian Judicial Institute has offered Social Context Education for the Judiciary.
42. Mahoney & Martin, eds., the Canadian Judicial Institute has offered Social Context Education for the Judiciary 12.
43. See, e.g., “The Means of Correct Training” in Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish (Toronto: Random House, 1975) [trans. 1977] 170.