More than 40 years have passed since children born out of wedlock were granted rights equivalent to those that children of married parents have always enjoyed. Today, and very fortunately, we no longer speak of illegitimate or illegitimate children, but of children in general whose maintenance and inheritance rights no longer vary depending on the circumstances of their birth.
Beyond the egalitarian principle, however, an important flaw remains regarding the stability to which all children should be entitled when the family unit breaks up.
In Quebec, statistics show that more than 60% of children are born outside of marriage in unions that come together and fragment. However, the separation of unmarried parents is not without consequences for them.
Many (children) will find themselves homeless, housed in community resources or with family members with the parent expelled from the family home by the owner or tenant.
Family law litigation mainly consists of these dismantled unions. As a lawyer who has worked in the field of families for several years, it is of these children that I think first and foremost when writing this letter. I think of these little ones who endure a decision they did not make and who must be guaranteed a roof over their head in the critical moments before or after separation.
Between two poles
Since the tabling of Bill 56 establishing parental union, we have heard and read harsh criticism from specialists who denounce its supposedly minimalist scope. Even though they have not made the choice to marry, de facto spouses with children, they repeat in unison, should be mutually subject to all the obligations which bind the spouses to each other. . In their opinion, the court should be able, on the day of the breakup, to impose on one of them the responsibility of paying alimony to the other to meet their needs. Furthermore, they add, it would be appropriate to subject de facto spouses with children to the obligation to equally share the values accumulated in their respective retirement plans.
Beyond this speech, another point of view, completely opposite, but no less legitimate, is also heard. Among the main stakeholders, de facto spouses, many, including women, feel uneasy at the idea of a law subjecting them to mutual obligations to which they have not expressly consented. According to them, it is not up to the State to forcefully marry them.
Without taking anything away from the specialists who are calling for legislative intervention which would reduce to little the decision-making autonomy of couples in common-law relationships, it is clear that most do not work in the field or work with clients whose socio-economic profile is not representative. The result is a somewhat truncated conception of the reality of families.
Far from constituting a monolithic block, couples do not necessarily see things from the same angle. The diversity of their aspirations imposes on us the duty to act with restraint and humility.
In other words, the target to be reached is not at one end or the other, but at the center, precisely where the children’s interest lies.
Bill 56 proposes a pragmatic, balanced approach likely to rally the entire population. Under the suggested changes, de facto spouses who have or adopt a child as of June 2025 will have to equally share parental union assets consisting of the main residence, household furniture and motor vehicles. If one of them has become impoverished by taking care of the children, the other could be required to pay him a compensatory benefit from the enrichment that he may have correspondingly accumulated. Measures are also provided to prevent the spouse who is not the owner or tenant of the family residence from suddenly finding themselves on the street with the children, before or following the separation.
Building on the work of the Advisory Committee on Family Law which led to the tabling of the Roy report in 2015, Bill 56 constitutes a major step forward which will ensure greater stability for the children of the union. do. I hope that the public consultations which begin on April 30 will take place peacefully.
The legislative initiative must progress, not be derailed. If adjustments eventually prove necessary, there will always be time to make them in the light of observed experience. For the moment, it is certainly not by falling into divisive ideology that we will advance the cause of children. No pun intended, the last thing they need is for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
* The following people support the author’s comments and share her conclusions: Me Valérie Assouline, lawyer; Me Danielle Beausoleil, notary and family mediator; Me Marie-Ève Brown, emeritus notary and family mediator; Me Marie-Laurence Brunet, lawyer; Me Sarah Fortin, lawyer; Me Suzanne Hotte, emeritus notary and family mediator; Me Francis Langlois, notary and family mediator; Me Nathalie Michaud, lawyer and family mediator; Me Nancy Provencher, lawyer; Me Malika Saher, lawyer mediator (Fondation Dr Julien); Me Pascale Vallant, lawyer
What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue
reference: www.lapresse.ca