It is not every year or every decade that the legislator updates family law. When it does so, it would therefore be desirable for the government to establish a flexible framework that will accommodate a variety of family formations. However, if Bill 2 [PL2] recently tabled by the Minister of Justice proposing certain improvements to Quebec family law, it risks violating the rights of certain people and excluding certain families whose existence is well known.
From the outset, we must welcome Minister Jolin-Barrette’s openness to taking note of the strong criticisms related to the proposals that would affect trans people. Both opposition parties and groups representing trans people have criticized the proposal to reinstate the requirement for any change in the designation of sex on the birth certificate to have surgery involving a structural change in birth certificates. sexual organs. They also opposed the proposal to introduce a second category, namely gender identity, parallel to that of sex.
Although it is to his credit that the minister says he is ready to improve his bill, everything will depend on how he does it. To this end, the government must meaningfully consult with trans communities. […]
In addition, PL2 would open up an unequal place in the law to family configurations. Certainly, many will welcome the initiative to supervise surrogacy. The gaping gap between the written law of the Civil Code and the lived law has, for a long time, generated many difficulties.
However, the PL2 would neglect certain parental situations. For example, it remains focused on a two-parent model, at most. He does so despite the existence of families in which three adults have agreed to become, together, the parents of a child. In these situations, do not the best interests of the child – the guiding principle of the reform – require legal recognition from all parents?
The reality of multiple parents is already recognized elsewhere, notably in the laws of Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Prior to these legislative reforms, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in 2007 that the best interests of the child may justify regularization of parental status. In this case, it was about a lesbian couple who had conceived a child with the help of a close friend. Given the intended involvement of the three adults in the child’s life, it was in the child’s interest to prevent the father from terminating his parentage in order to consent to the adoption of the child by the spouse of the mother already recognized.
The argument that recognizing more than two parents would unduly complicate the life of the child – or the parents, or the lawyers, or the courts – is not convincing. The parental project with three parents, like that of the lesbian couple, is developed in a thoughtful and planned manner. It is therefore different from the complications that can arise after the break-up of two parents, whose new spouses can become deeply involved in the child’s life. In any case, it is necessary to distinguish the complications which arise in the life of those which would produce the law.
By clinging to the two-parent model, the legislator seems to fix his gaze on an ideal family image of the past.
Let us admit that a certain impatience arises. It has been years since a reform in family law has been announced. General elections are on the horizon. However, you should not rush. Let us hope that the Minister will take the time to conduct extensive consultations – among others with groups representing trans and intersex people as well as those fighting against family violence – in order to better take into account family diversity in Quebec law.