By Jim Coggins

THE B.C. government’s proposed revisions to the Family Relations Act will make this province’s family law the most progressive in the country, according to some observers.

Christians, however, are giving the proposal mixed reviews.

Vancouver family lawyer Georgialee Lang told the Vancouver Sun many of the proposed changes were “absolutely groundbreaking.” On the other hand, while welcoming some of aspects, Dave Quist suggested the changes are “not going to solve all the problems.” Quist is executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC).

A 182-page white paper outlining the changes was released July 19 by Attorney General Michael de Jong. It is based on four years of study and consultation. The government is inviting further feedback until October 8, after which it will develop the paper into proposed legislation.

The goals of the process were to modernize the 30 year old law, to encourage co-operative approaches to resolving family law disputes and to make the law easier to understand.

When contacted by BCCN, Quist was still in the process of carefully analyzing the white paper.

Costs of divorce

BCCN: Is it a good idea to make the divorce process less adversarial?

Quist: There is no doubt that there are problems in the family court system. Most men in a divorce feel they have been put out to pasture, and are financially stressed. Where there is a family breakdown, we need to find better ways to make the process less adversarial – and to make sure people are treated fairly.

However, the real problem is the basic premise many such laws are based on: that we should make family breakdown easier. I wish we, as a society, put as much effort into making marriage work.

Divorce is extremely costly. The B.C. government spends $694 million a year in direct costs of divorce, and that does not include indirect costs such as increased medical expenses and declines in work productivity for those going through a divorce. There is also a huge social cost. It creates a huge stress load. The period after a divorce is when kids often go off the tracks – into drugs, alcohol and gang activity.

BCCN: You said you agreed with the proposed legislation’s goal to make divorce less adversarial, and to have the couple reach agreement outside the court system.

Quist: Once the lawyers get involved, it becomes more adversarial. No one wins but the lawyers. Statistics show that often the assets don’t go to either partner, but to legal costs.

However, by making the process less adversarial, I hope it will help the couple realize their problems are solvable – and if they can resolve the issues involved in splitting up, then why can’t they resolve their other issues and stay together?

Continue article >>

BCCN: The white paper also proposes allowing children to have more than two legally recognized parents – for instance, for homosexual and lesbian couples who need a third party to help them produce a child.

Quist: The whole issue has become more prominent – not just for same-sex couples, but also for heterosexual couples who are having infertility problems. This is due to couples delaying having children until they are older and less fertile – but also due to promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, which change the cellular structure of the cervix and womb and make women less fertile.

When a sperm donor, an egg donor and a surrogate mother are added into the mix, a child could end up with five legal parents. That will not make matters easier . . .

Daddy Donor

The proposed legislation has not addressed the complications involved in processes such as in vitro fertilization.            A recent study supported by the IMFC, called ‘My Daddy’s Name is Donor,’ showed that children who find out that one of their natural parents was a donor often have a strong negative reaction, with higher rates of mental illness and involvement in crime.

These children may be loved; but as they grow up, they sense something is missing. Something is intrinsically built into us that makes us want to know who we are.

BCCN: The proposed law treats unmarried couples who have lived together for two years, or who have a child together, the same as married couples – including provisions for the dividing of property. Is this a good approach?

Quist: Society assumes there is no difference between cohabitation and marriage. But children do much better when raised by their married biological parents. In our submission, we will stress the difference between cohabitation and marriage. Cohabitation is not a practice marriage, but a practice divorce. The couple are only partly committed. Marriage is much more than a contract. It includes commitment, covenant, teamwork and love.

Often we don’t realize the repercussions of legal changes until five or 10 years down the road. No-fault divorce was brought in, in 1968, with the expectation that it would make things better. Now we know that there is no such thing as a good divorce. Let’s figure out how to stop the negative cycle. That’s not in the white paper.

Churches can help

BCCN: What should churches be doing?

Quist: Marriage is hard work, but very worthwhile work. And helping people make marriage work is one of the roles churches should have. I’ve talked to community helping agencies around the world – and the most successful programs are not government-run, but community-based.

This represents a real opportunity for local neighbourhood churches to have an influence. Churches can offer the Alpha marriage course, counselling sessions, books and DVDs. There are a lot of good materials to help couples improve communications, and work as a team.

Being involved in a church community is a great help to married couples. The pastoral staff usually have some counselling training, and there are care groups where people care for each other. Being able to recognize that there are problems, and have people care for you, is something that many people outside the church don’t have access to.

August 2010