The Inapplicability of Rights Analysis in Post-Divorce Child Custody Decision Making
AbstractIt is well understood that in custody battles passions become inflamed and children often become victims of their parents' irrational, selfish behaviour. Within the court system, various concepts have been developed in an attempt to combat this and to achieve custody arrangements that are in the best interests of the children. Munro explores these concepts and reveals that all too often the best interests of the children are sacrificed for the rights of the parents. Indeed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has added strength to parental rights arguments within custody battles. Munro challenges those who believe that rights analysis should be used to create equality between parents seeking the custody of their children. She explores the various myths about the differences between men and women as caregivers and concludes that, on a general level, men are biologically capable of being the caregiving parent but refuse to actively take on the role. Ultimately, Munro suggests that the appropriate test to use to determine who should have custody is the Primary Caregiver Test. This test is based on the presumption that the parent who was the primary caregiver during the marriage will he the better caregiver after the marriage and, thus, should be awarded custody of the children. The Primary Caregiver Test, Munro argues, is not only more effective, less time consuming and less costly than other tests, but also acts to preserve the concept of the best interests of the children which must be the pinnacle consideration in all custody disputes.
For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.