SJCA Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CHILD CUSTODY AND ACCESS

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL SUR LA GARDE ET LE DROIT DE VISITE DES ENFANTS

PREAMBLE

The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Child Custody and Access met this day at 3:30 p.m. to examine and analyze issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation and divorce, and in particular, to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests.

Senator Landon Pearson and Mr. Roger Gallaway (Joint Chairmen) in the Chair.

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 18, 1998

• 1540

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): First, I wish to welcome those present to the ninth meeting of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. I should announce, because this committee is being televised, that this committee was set up by resolution of both the Senate of Canada and the House of Commons. The committee has 23 members and it has been asked to study the matter of custody and access with respect to the Divorce Act.

Our first witnesses are from the Ottawa Chapter of G.R.A.N.D. Society, Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity. Please proceed.

Ms Jeanette Mather (Honorary Member, G.R.A.N.D. Society, (Ottawa) Chapter, Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity): Honourable senators, because we are allotted 10 minutes to make our presentation, I will summarize our report. I would ask that you take the entire report as read. Ms George will have a supplementary report following me.

Our purpose in appearing before you is to ask that the Divorce Act be amended to include a recognition of the importance for grandparents to have continued access to their grandchildren after divorce.

Even more important, the amendments we seek will establish that, for the needs and best interests of children to be recognized, continued association with their grandparents following separation and divorce is crucial and necessary.

There are tremendous emotional and financial stresses on grandparents. In most cases, they are losing access to their grandchildren simply because it is their son or daughter who is the non-custodial parent.

As a result of hostilities between the parents, the grandparents are losing access. They must spend thousands of dollars when they are forced to take court action to try to regain access to their grandchildren and there is no certainty whatsoever that they will be successful in these actions or, if successful, that the court order will be enforceable. Many grandparents will not take court action for access out of fear that they will lose what little contact they already have with their grandchildren.

Almost all grandparents are prepared to provide assistance to their grandchildren when necessary. A survey was carried out in Toronto by Wilks and Melville, in 1990, wherein it was determined that of the cases referred to the Toronto Family Court Clinic for Assessment in the period June 1985 to June 1986, one-third of parents and three-quarters of the children had lived in a grandparent's home during or after parental separation.

Many grandparents are totally cut off from their grandchildren or live month-to-month hoping visits with their grandchildren will continue and that they may even have a chance to baby-sit. They are entitled to more dignity than what is being permitted now due to the failure of laws to protect their interests and the interests of grandchildren.

According to Statistics Canada, in 1995 there were 77,636 divorces in Canada. Assuming an average of two children per family, 155,272 children were affected as a result of those divorces. There is undoubtedly a larger number of grandparents who are affected.

Members of our organization believe that recognition of the important role played by grandparents within families will be a step towards maintaining family stability and will be in the best interests of children. This is critical in our rapidly changing society. One way this can be achieved is to amend the Divorce Act to establish the unique status of grandparents when separation or divorce occurs in families.

We have outlined four experiences of grandparents in our report, the first of which is referred to as “B and GL”. When the marriage of this couple's son and his wife dissolved, the three grandchildren were ages nine, eight and six. From the time they were born, they had slept at the home of the grandparents at least twice a week. After the marriage breakdown, the difficulties between the parents escalated and a disastrous four years followed.

The mother gained custody of the children and the grandparents were eventually completely cut out of their grandchildren's lives. The children could only telephone the grandparents and visit with them without the knowledge of the mother. This resulted at various times in the arrest of the father, the grandfather and the grandmother.

An application for access before the court by the grandparents resulted in only one half-day per month access. The oldest child ran away from her mother and was returned by the police 17 times. She threatened to kill herself if she was forced to return to her mother. The children were treated like criminals.

The father was subsequently awarded full custody of one child. He had shared custody of another child and later that child, by choice, lived full time with the father. The third child lives with the mother and now visits regularly with the father and grandparents. This is the situation after four years of court battles and many thousands of dollars spent by the grandparents in trying to get access to the grandchildren.

This family was ripped apart and the emotional damage to the whole family, particularly the children, may never be repaired. If there had been specific recognition for grandparents and access was enforced, this might well have prevented the custodial parent from trying to cut those ties. The court could have given more recognition to the importance of the grandparents to continue to play a significant role in the lives of the children. It would have been in the best interests of the children to have had the security of healthy contact with all members of the family, parents and grandparents.

I will now turn to the bottom of page 5 in the report. The heading should read “Existing and Proposed Legislation.”

At present, the Divorce Act allows either or both spouses or “any other person” to apply for court-ordered custody of or access to a child. Grandparents are not distinguished from other third parties, but instead are grouped in section 16 of the Divorce Act under “any other person.” As “any other person”, they are required to first obtain the court's permission before being allowed to make an application under section 16.

With respect to access, this may be granted to the grandparents of children whose parents are divorcing or are already divorced. If an order has already been made under section 16, access for the grandparents may be added or changed by applying under section 16 to vary the original order. Again, they need to obtain the court's permission before being allowed to make such an application.

I am skipping over now to the section entitled “Other Countries”, which begins at the bottom of page 7. Grandparents in Canada are learning they are not alone in their quest for recognition with respect to their importance in the lives of children. This is also being debated in many countries around the world.

The courts in France stipulate that a parent may not oppose personal relationships between grandparents and grandchildren without serious reason. There is similar legislation in Belgium. Legislation will come into force in Germany on July 1 of this year which includes specific reference to grandparents, recognizing not only the rights of children but the rights of grandparents with respect to access matters.

All 50 states in the United States address the matter of grandparents with respect to access and custody. The involvement of grandparents in caring for the grandchildren is steadily increasing in the United States. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that, in 1995, approximately 3,965,000 children were living with grandparents, a 6.2 per cent increase over 1994 and a 25.7 per cent increase over the previous five-year period. Over one-third of those children lived in their grandparents' home where no parent was present.

Since submitting our report, we have received information from Australia. The Australian Family Law Act was amended in 1996 to give explicit legal recognition to the important role played by grandparents in the upbringing of children. Australia went through a similar process to that which Canada is now undergoing.

It was written into the Australian legislation that in the case of a dispute the parties are to present a family plan to the court. If there is no dispute, a family plan can be presented and that can be in the final document. However, if there is a dispute, the act stipulates that there must be a family plan. The court will then make a decision after studying those family plans as to what is best for the children with respect to access and custody. The problem that they are now encountering is enforcement of that act.

With respect to our recommendations, it should be presumed by the wording of the Divorce Act that it is in a child's best interests to have contact with his or her grandparents and that grandparents are a positive influence in a child's life.

It should also be presumed by the wording of the Divorce Act that grandparents have special standing as applicants for custody of or access to their grandchildren. When we were preparing our report, we went through the Divorce Act. On page nine of our report, we highlight the changes we felt we wanted to see in the act. We have since decided that this is perhaps not the most appropriate way to make our recommendations.

We wish instead to simply emphasize to the committee that we wish to see changes to the Divorce Act so that, one, with regard to custody and access matters, grandparents are legally recognized as having a unique and special status with respect to their grandchildren and, two, grandparents should not have to seek leave of the court before making application for custody or access.

I will now pass it over to Liliane George.

Ms Liliane George (President, (Ottawa) Chapter, G.R.A.N.D. Society, Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity): I have been the president of G.R.A.N.D. Society, (Ottawa) Chapter, for the past 10 years.

Fifty years ago, parents had many children; unfortunately, today, children have many parents.

It is difficult for children who are denied their basic right to see the non-custodial parents and grandparents after their parents separate and divorce. Many of these children are going through life very confused; some suffer much in pain and anger; and some turn to violence and crime.

Child abuse is on the rise, and grandparents are usually the ones who see the first signs of abuse and neglect. As a result of trying to do something to stop the abuse, grandparents often lose access to their grandchildren. Some children are taken away from their parents by the Children's Aid, who put them in foster care and then closed adoption. This is devastating for a family. Sometimes grandparents get custody of their grandchildren, but other times they may lose them and never see them again.

One member of our group, a grandmother in a wheel chair, has been raising her three grandchildren, three, five and seven years old. It has been difficult financially. The grandfather has to work at three jobs to be able to take care of their grandchildren.

When there is separation or divorce in a family, many grandparents are faced with new challenges. In many cases a financial burden is placed upon grandparents when their children come back into the family home with their children. At this time in their lives, grandparents should be enjoying their golden years and should not have to be pushed to financial ruin just to be able to enjoy a normal healthy relationship with their grandchildren. Some of our members spend $30,000, $40,000 and $50,000 in court, and that is devastating on families.

In some cases, one parent or sometimes grandparents are accused of child abuse. False reports of child abuse can divert resources and attention from those truly abused. I will present to you one of many court cases pertaining to abuse allegations.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): I wonder if I might interrupt you for one moment. We are under time constraints. Perhaps you could move to the recommendations.

Ms George: Thank you. We ask the committee to consider changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that bad behaviour is not rewarded by the courts. We recommend that the committee change the Divorce Act to ensure that, where false allegations are raised, the court should view this as child abuse and take that into consideration when making custody and access decisions. This could be achieved by adding a paragraph to section 16 of the Divorce Act regarding false allegations in divorce proceedings.

The children of divorce must be protected from this devastating experience which can change their lives forever. Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): Thank you.

I would now ask Mrs. Luyken, our next witness, to proceed.

Ms Irma Luyken (President, Waterloo Branch, Association to Reunite Grandparents and Families): I am pleased to be invited to address this group. We are one of many grandparent groups. We may have different approaches, but one purpose: the well-being of our grandchildren.

The first aim of our group is to provide a support system for all family members. We welcome not only grandparents but all family members who suffer the loss of their nieces and/or nephews due to family breakdown.

Our second aim is to identify and meet the children's needs. One of our main concerns is to shorten the period of time required for settlement of a dispute in order to mitigate the negative impact on the children.

Our third aim is mediation before litigation. The advantages of good psychological mediation are many. Mediation allows the parties to tailor-make solutions which meet their own specific needs and interests, whereas litigation fosters even more hostility. Costs of mediation are much less, and resolution of the problem may be faster.

Public education and awareness is another one of our aims. We participate in self-help fairs, appear on TV, and give interviews on the radio, at service clubs, interest groups, whoever and wherever they will have us. We hear lawyers, mediators, councillors, and paralegals. We are hoping to talk to students in secondary schools in their parenting and family living classes, which is a pet project of mine, with the intent to help prevent avoidable trauma for future children. Prevention is best done through public education, and where best to do this but with our young people.

Our fifth aim is political action to create and enforce access. We encourage our members, friends, and even acquaintances to write to their MPs, their MPPs, and their newspapers. We realize that what is needed are changes to our laws, and therefore we are here today.

We also stress at our meetings that everything that is said and happens in the group is confidential. We also impress upon our members and visitors that we are not professionals, we are not lawyers, and that all we do is offer lay advice. We speak from our own experience.

Why should grandparents have access? It is a well-known fact that there is mutual attraction and rapport between the young and the old, and this is especially true between grandchildren and their grandparents. One of the many advantages to the children from interaction with their grandparents includes emotional support in a stable, secure environment, and this is most important. Often, it does include financial support as well. Unconditional love is freely given, and a sympathetic ear is provided to hear the children's fears and their frustrations and needs. In this very mobile society, it is

Statistics clearly show us that there is an increase in the number of break-ups of marriages. Statistics are kept of marriage break-ups, but these do not include all eventualities such as family disputes and death of one or more parent. I know that we are particularly interested and concerned with the Divorce Act. However, statistics do not show the number of denials of access to grandparents unless there has been a court appearance. We hear from a large number of grandparents who are denied access to their grandchildren. Each scenario is different, but the bottom line is the same: All of them

My husband and I were affected about four years ago when our son and daughter-in-law separated, and of course we were devastated. At various times during that separation, we were denied access to our little grandson, our first grandchild, and we were not allowed to see our new granddaughter until she was five months old. I remember seeing our one-and one-half year old grandson in the park, and the anguish on his little face was so evident when it was time for me to leave. It was more pathetic because he did not cry. He whimpered in the arms of his care-giver. He was not living in his own house

We are thankful to the G.R.A.N.D. Society, also a grandparent group, for their support and help. My husband and I are very fortunate that our son and daughter-in-law are back together again and working out their problems, and there are many, but this is only after several years of great pain and great expense.

Another case involved a grandmother who was denied access, and when she finally did get some access, her little granddaughter exclaimed, “Nana, you didn't die!” When the time came to end the visit the little girl said, “Nana, don't die again.”

In today's world, common-law arrangements are recognized entities, and at times these arrangements too will deny access to the grandparents.

In today's world, where emphasis is placed on the individual, family disputes can result in access being denied to grandparents and family because the individual is being emphasized. We know of deaths of one or both parents that result in denial of access to family members.

Awareness of these problems has increased dramatically over the past few years. Federally, there has been a private member's bill and, to our delight, the establishment of this committee. Provincially, several jurisdictions have passed bills in an effort to address this problem. Publicly, in January of 1998, on Vision TV, June Stewart, the leader of the Oakville group of the ARGF, and I participated in a program about custody and access. As a result of that appearance, June Stewart received calls of inquiry from distraught grandparents seeking information and support. These came literally from

In the Waterloo branch, we receive on average at least one new call every two weeks from distressed grandparents. Each has a different story but the same concern; namely, denial of access to much-loved grandchildren and requesting information about what can we do about it. Often the conditions given for them to see their grandchildren include some sort of concession to the parent or parents, and that is usually monetary.

In conclusion, it is imperative that the well-being of the children be given primary consideration. In broken marriages or family disputes, that primary consideration could be achieved by expediting procedures for custody and access. If these two aspects are settled first, the children cannot be used as pawns or levers for the benefits of one or both parents to settle other aspects of the break-up.

Grandparents and/or immediate family must be considered first for custody ahead of placement in foster homes. This is stated in the Ontario Child and Family Services Act, but it is seldom observed. Your committee has the opportunity to make far-reaching recommendations that will reduce the pain and stress to all parties involved in marriage and family disputes and break-downs. Thus, you will be able to reduce stress and suffering of affected children by providing concrete guidelines and law for custody and access. Goodness only knows when you, as a present or a prospective grandparent, may ind

The importance of federal legislation is that it will set the standard for any existing or pending provincial or territorial legislation on this issue. However, we would respectfully suggest that you take note and consider the points stated in the Bill C-27, to amend the Children's Law Reform Act in Ontario. The proposed legislation specifically gives grandparents status in court. It specifically promotes personal relations between children and grandparents, and states that there be as much contact between the child and grandparents as is consistent with the best interests - and that is what w

We would add that the parents of the child would be obliged to prove to the court why it would not be in the best interests of the child to have contact with the grandparents - and this is now the law, I believe, in both Quebec and Alberta.

Lastly, grandparents are usually a team. I am here at the table by myself but Opa, as he is known to our grandchildren, is back there lending me his support. Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): Thank you for being within the time constraints.

Ms Luyken: For the first time in my life.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): Our next witness is Ms Bremmer.

Ms Madelaine Bremmer (President, Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association, Ottawa): I am with the Ottawa chapter of our association. My brief will be forthcoming. I was away for a month and was only advised of this about eight days ago so I had to prepare in a big hurry.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our concerns with regards to the very crucial issue of grandchildren being disconnected from their grandparents through no fault of their own. After seven years of active work with grandparent groups across Canada, and after hearing the tragic stories of hundreds of grandparents through networking with the same groups, I do not hesitate to say today, along with Dr. Kornhaber, famous child and family psychiatrist, researcher and author on the subject, that we are becoming a nation of orphan grandparents. Indeed, in Canada and elsewhere, countless grandpare

In this presentation I shall endeavour to illustrate through some actual cases, including our own, how we grandparents, denied our relationship with our grandchildren, have been short-changed in exercising our bill of rights and responsibilities - a bill that comes, according to Dr. Kornhaber, the instant we become a grandparent. At that very instant, he says, we assume an entirely new position in the structure of our families' long-term future. Also, we need our grandchildren to love, to care for, to have fun with, to share our dreams. Otherwise, we cannot fulfil our role as a grandparent, th

Our grandchildren also have the inherent right to associate with and love their grandparents, whether there has been a separation, death or conflict within the family. This genetic emotional bond should never be tampered with by outside forces except for serious reasons. Unfortunately, these outside forces that I am referring to are the custodial parents who, for various reasons, but mainly for self-serving motives, as we have discovered, upset the harmony in their children's lives by inflicting on them such abuse.

We are all aware that distance can often limit actual physical contact with our grandchildren, but what about other forms of contact that nurture and strengthen the relationship, like phone calls, particularly for those special occasions such as birthdays, Christmas, kindergarten graduation, letters, cards, and e-mail, which our grandchildren are so adept at using and can even teach the grandparents to use? You may be wondering why I am mentioning such obvious ways of maintaining a relationship. It is to alert you to the fact that, in most cases where access has been denied, all other forms of

When grandparents plead for significant news of their grandchildren from the parents, their pleas are sometimes completely ignored. A request for a recent photo gets the same reply - none. The last photos we have of our grandchildren are from when they were six and seven years of age respectively. They are now 13 and 14 years of age.

The sad reality is that countless grandparents are suffering the same heart-breaking plight and, in too many instances, the courts fail to address such a basic and legitimate request. Could we recommend that our courts exercise some form of compassion in their judgments?

I want to focus on grandchildren who are disengaged from their grandparents as a result of a first tragedy in their lives: the death of one of their parents. We are all aware that the greatest percentage of disengagements happen as a result of the divorce of the child's parents, and that the estranged grandparents are, in most cases, the parents of the non-custodial parent. It seems that most attempts made in the past to change legislation have been targeted at those types of cases. What about those grandparents who have already suffered the tragedy of losing their adult child, the parent of—

It is often done very abruptly. In our case, it was done overnight. In some cases, it is done in a very subtle way so that the children are not too aware of the severance, especially if they live some distance away and do not visit frequently.

To illustrate our heart-wrenching circumstances, I will read a brief passage which I wrote in 1994 during the International Year of the Family, the year that we dared to dream that our legislatures would enact equitable grandparent legislation. It is taken from the book Families from Within published by St. Paul's University. I wrote the following:

Although we are long distance grandparents, the special bond between us and our grandchildren is very strong. We visit them in their distant province when we can, send parcels and cards. Their cheery little voices on the telephone for special occasions or for no reason at all except to say we love you a whole lot, warm our hearts. They love having us read to them and chuckle and help us out when we stumble over big words like BRONTOSAURUS and the like. A twist of fate shatters this all too perfect tableau when the children's mother, our daughter, dies suddenly. We are all devastated by this gr

I am deeply saddened to report that our whole family - my husband, myself, our three daughters, their spouses, and their children - have lived this horrible trauma for seven years now. It was seven years ago that the door was cruelly shut on us and our grandchildren by a son-in-law whom we liked and where mutual respect and affection existed before our daughter's death. At least this is what we perceived it to be.

The reality is that we are still the children's grandparents and will always be, no matter what the parents' marital status is.

In his study of 50 grandparents disengaged from their grandchildren, Dr. Kruk of UBC says in his book Divorce and Disengagement that they - the two generations - go through the same stages of grieving as in losing someone through death. Other experts also state that such a brutal rupture of ties will cause detrimental and long-term effects to both parties.

Before my friend Patricia lists some recommendations which we respectfully submit, I would like to comment briefly on another point, that of step-parent adoption. The famous ploy used to ensure that grandparents are kept out of the picture completely is for the new step-parent to legally adopt the children without the grandparents' knowledge. We would hope that judges would realize that a step-parent adoption is sometimes undertaken not for the child's benefit but to estrange the ex-in-laws and to prohibit subsequent access applications.

In our case, since litigation on our part had not been initiated at the time of our grandsons' adoption, and since the contact with the family was one-sided - our side - it is obvious that the adoption was a fait accompli by the time we found out.

We therefore recommend that the legislation be amended with regard to step-parent adoption, as well as other amendments which my colleague will outline later.

I should also like to bring to your attention the fact that the rights of the child are stated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989 and formally ratified by Canada in December, 1991. Article 5 of the convention requires state parties to respect the responsibilities, rights and duties, not only of parents but also of members of the extended family. Article 16 of the same convention provides that no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with family. Article 19 provides that all appropriate legislative,

The Right Honourable Joe Clark, Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs at the time, wrote to one of our members in Calgary in 1992, I believe, to let her know of the said convention and its current provisions that are considered sufficient to accommodate the concern she had raised, that being disengagement from her grandchild. I have a copy of the letter which you may want to discuss after the presentation.

I hope I have demonstrated to you the sad reality that plagues too many grandparents and grandchildren today. Our laws have not kept up with the changes in societal factors of the last two decades, at both the federal and provincial levels, except for three provinces. Grandparents have clamoured for change since 1980. They are the voice of our grandchildren who are the innocent victims in all of this. They are helpless in these unjust situations.

When there was hope on the horizon that private member's Bill C-232 would become law, our hopes were dashed for the umpteenth time with its defeat by our legislators, although some experts had proved that it was a sound bill in all aspects. Why did our politicians not listen?

In conclusion, we beg you, dear members, to be strong and clear in relaying our message, for the love of our grandchildren. Please ask our legislators to act promptly before more causalities happen.

Ms Patricia Moreau (Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association): My name is Patricia Moreau, and the following are our recommendations for legislative amendments.

Legislation creating a presumption in favour of maintaining the grandparent-grandchild relationship would likely alter the behaviour of custodial parents who might otherwise withhold access without good cause. We submit that the Divorce Act should provide that this relationship be presumed to be in the best interests of the child, and that it should therefore not be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated to a court that it is not in the best interests of the child.

The Divorce Act should be amended to recognize grandparents as a distinct category of third persons who may apply for access to a child without requiring leave of the court.

The laws respecting access in non-divorce situations should be amended in conformity with our submissions regarding the Divorce Act.

The child welfare laws of each province should be amended to provide that each grandparent receive notice of any hearing related to the province's intervention to protect a child, and that each grandparent receive notice of any proceeding with respect to the adoption of a child.

A step-parent adoption should have no effect on the grandchild's right of access to a grandparent.

Furthermore, a grandparent should be able to apply for an access order at the step-parent adoption hearing itself, and the court should consider these recommendations and the willingness of the step-parent to let the child have a relationship with his biological grandparents.

Compulsory mediation should be imposed between the grandparents and the grandchild's parents. If one party fails to enter into the process, then the court should consider immediately the application for access, and the judgment should reflect the reluctance of the party failing to work out an agreement.

Senator Cohen: As a grandmother myself, I was very moved by your stories. It is shocking to me that grandparents are still considered third party applicants.

I have to remove the emotional aspect and think with my head rather than my heart when I ask you these questions because, as a grandmother listening to your presentations, I would say that we should give you everything. However, given that we are here to do a job, I have a couple of realistic questions that I want to you answer.

Should access application rights be available to all grandparents or only to those who could establish a past relationship or a significant relationship with the child? I am thinking of when they spend Friday nights or weekends or when they baby-sit. Or do you think it should be across the board?

Ms George: I would say access application rights should be available to grandparents in good standing because not all grandparents are good grandparents. We have to be careful.

Ms Moreau: I am concerned, then, that we will run into the problem of children who have moved to another province because of a parent's work or due to some other situation. Grandparents cannot be there once a week with them. Maybe they talk to them on the phone or communicate in some other fashion. If we put into the law that those grandparents cannot see their grandchildren, we would be penalizing grandparents who love those children dearly. It is not their fault that the child is not in the same province.

As long as the grandparent has never harmed the child emotionally or in any other way, then why do they not have a right to see that child?

Ms Luyken: I think access, though, does include by telephone, e-mail, and so on. Even though we might not actually be able to visit with them, we can usually contact them, whether they are in another province or on the other side of town, which sometimes happens.

We must also accept the fact that there are some grandparents who should not see their grandchildren. My best friend is one of them. She does not, and she should not. At the same time, however, I think it would be a good idea if the parents or the custodial parent had to prove why it would not be in the best interests of the child. After all, it is the child we are thinking about. We want to see them. We are thinking about ourselves, but we want what is best for the child.

Senator Cohen: In the context of access to the child, if parents are having a problem sharing children's time between them, which we know does happen, how should a grandparent's claim be dealt with in this context? It could happen.

Ms Luyken: Yes. I think that many times it could be combined with the access of the non-custodial parent. I know that was the case with us. We must also remember that even though we wanted lots of access, nevertheless, those are little children. If they go to daddy every other weekend and yet we want to see them many times as well, those poor little kids will not have time for soccer, swimming lessons, and so on. I think it could oftentimes be combined with the father's access.

We had court-appointed access for my husband's birthday, which happens to be in April, and my birthday, which happens to be in October. We also had two other weekends in the year, plus a week in the summer with each one of them. Perhaps that is enough. We also had any other time that we could see them with their father. We have to think about what is best for them. They must have some time for themselves.

Ms Bakopanos: I want to preface my remarks by saying that with a name like Bakopanos, I come from an Hellenic origin. The extended family is not just theory - it is practice. If I am here today as a member of Parliament, the fact is that my parents were there for the nurturing of my children in my absence and also for their everyday needs. I therefore value very highly the role that grandparents play in my life and in the life of my community. I am grateful for that because I consider myself very lucky in comparison with other parents.

A comment was made earlier by Mrs. Bremmer regarding Bill C-232. I played a particular role that day in the House of Commons on that bill, and I wish to clarify something for you.

That bill was a private member's bill. The way it works in the House of Commons - and excuse me if I seem to be lecturing, but I think it is important to put this on the record - the committee that deals with private members' business considered it a non-votable bill. In other words, in order to make it votable back in the House, it would need unanimous consent. However, the committee decided it was non-votable.

That bill was not rejected by the legislators. I want to make that point because I was the one who said “no” in terms of making it votable. There is a process that must be respected and standing orders in the House of Commons that must be respected. I wanted to put that on the record for you. It is a role that some of us as parliamentarians have to play, and I respect the rules we live under. Your comments may have been interpreted such that we rejected the actual thrust of the bill, but that was not the case. There was no debate on it.

I think there was a lot of support for the bill, including from myself. There were a lot of provisions in that bill.

I have three questions. When that bill was debated, the Canadian bar and the Quebec bar both opposed that bill. They said it was an intrusion into the privacy of the parent-child relationship, and it would grant grandparents rights they do not have when a marriage is intact.

They also believe to a certain extent that automatic participation of the grandparents in divorce would be seen as disruptive in very difficult and complex divorce situations.

How will access be enforced for grandparents when you cannot even enforce court-ordered access for one of the parents? Those are very complex and difficult issues, and most of you have lived through such situations. By that, I mean you have survived a process which is very difficult for the parents of the children and yourselves.

Those were some of the difficulties the Canadian and Quebec bar associations brought forward to us as legislators. Another issue that was discussed at the time was the fact that some legislators considered access to be subject to provincial jurisdiction, that it should be up to the provinces to choose if they would change their statutes to allow access by grandparents.

Ms Bremmer: I understood you voted against Bill C-232 in the house.

Ms Bakopanos: I was not against the legislation. I just explained to you what I did.

Ms Bremmer: I was given to believe that it had to do with proclaiming or designating Grandparents Day for the second Sunday of September.

Ms Bakopanos: That was one issue.

Since the introduction of Bill C-232, what attempts have you made to convince the Quebec or Canadian bar that you have a just cause?

Ms Moreau: The Province of Quebec has laws to protect grandparents and they are enforced constantly. I am trying to understand why you are saying access would not be enforceable. It is being enforced every day.

Ms Bakopanos: Section 611 of the Quebec Civil Code does allow that right. However, they cannot enforce access. If they cannot enforce it for one of the parents, how will they enforce it for the grandparents? That is the basis of my question.

Ms Luyken: In Ontario, fathers who do not pay support must suffer the consequences. If there is court-ordered access, why should the custodial parent - who usually is the mother - not suffer the same consequences as the father if he does not pay? He may lose his driver's licence or his passport.

If there is court-ordered access, the courts could say, "You had better let daddy see those kids or you will lose your licence and you will have trouble getting to work." Perhaps that would help.

Ms Bakopanos: What about the grandparents? How do you force the court to give them access?

Ms Luyken: I do not know.

Ms Bakopanos: That is my question. Give me guidance.

Ms Luyken: I understood you to be speaking about when you could not enforce it for the parents.

I realize the courts have great difficulty in enforcing access. However, if it were enforced for the non-custodial parent, then perhaps the custodial parent would realize that it is also pretty important that the grandparents see the child too . Maybe there would not then be any sanctions. I would be willing to give it a try.

Ms Moreau: My daughter died three years ago and we were cut off immediately from seeing the grandchildren. We had to go to court to see them. We were granted interim visits once a month. Then we were suddenly cut off. We went up to his door and he said, "No, I have decided you are not getting access; I do not want you to have it." He closed the door in our faces. We were not allowed to see the children. We had to go back to court. That judge put him in his place. He said, "You were ordered to do it, you do it." His lawyer was also threatened. He was told, "You do it. This is what I said and wh

I do not see where it is so hard to enforce.

[Translation]

Ms Diane St-Jacques (Shefford): I want to thank you for your very touching presentation. I have to tell you that I find it very difficult to understand why some parents would prevent their children from seeing their grandparents. I have an 11 year old little girl and if I ever divorce, to me, it would be the natural thing to do.

What are the main reasons to refuse access to the grandparents? Would there be any way, other than legal means, to encourage parents to consider granting access to grandparents, or should we only consider legislating such access?

[English]

Ms Moreau: That would be the ideal situation in a perfect world. However, in our situation, we have had to go through assessments with psychiatrists and everything else. He apparently feels so vengeful against us for attempting to gain access that he married almost immediately afterwards and the stepmother does not want us to be part of their lives. She has told the children we are not grandparents in their lives.

As well as losing their mother, those children lost her whole family. The father has a terribly vengeful attitude on this. We tried very hard to settle this matter out of court, through mediation and other things, but nothing worked, which meant that seven months later we had to go to court.

I do not think there is any other way of doing it other than having a law to protect us. Then we would probably not have to go to court. If his spouse knew that there was a law there that protected us in some way, I do not think he would be so nasty. He just slammed the door on us and said, “Take me to court if you want to see the kids.” That was his attitude.

Ms Bremmer: I am sure if there had been a law, we would not have been prevented from seeing our grandchildren. We tried mediation with friends, with clergymen and with his employer. That is why it took us so long to get to court. We kept hoping that he would come to some understanding and that we would be able to mediate one way or the other, but it never worked. We waited five years. When we finally went to court, we did not get one thing. It was very difficult. It was one week before Christmas and we had very good proposals. We knew that the re-entry into the children's lives had to be very

The court did not grant us anything because he had witnesses who said that we did not have a good relationship with our daughter. Can you imagine saying that when our daughter is no longer here to defend herself? We hardly knew those people, yet the court accepted their testimony and gave us absolutely nothing.

Ms Luyken: If I seem to always be blaming the woman, it is because usual the mother is the custodial parent. The same thing can be true of custodial fathers. In order to get even with the spouse, they will not let his parents, or sometimes her parents, see the grandchildren. It is a case of getting even with the spouse or former spouse. That is all.

I wish there were some onus put on the divorcing parents to prove that it was not in the best interests of the children to see their grandparents. I think that is the case in Alberta. Perhaps there would be fewer instances of grandparents being cut off, because I do not think parents would want to come to court and spell out some silly, little reason for denying access.

[Translation]

Ms Alarie: What we all want - because I'm also a grandmother and, fortunately, touch wood, everything is fine - is to protect the best interests of the child. It is very sad to hear such touching stories. Several questions come to my mind. You are saying that there is a major difference - at least, that's what I understand - between a divorce and the death of one of the parents. For me, this is a whole new way of looking at the issue. I came here thinking only about the Divorce Act, and you told us about the tragic circumstances that result from a death in the family.

Someone mentioned earlier the Quebec legislation on the grandparents' access right, Section 611, and apparently, it is difficult to enforce - but there are always problems in such circumstances - and you, ladies, also mentioned this section in your letter:

In no case may the father or mother, without a grave reason, interfere with personal relations between the child and his grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the terms and conditions of these relations are decided by the court.

Of course, the court is not the first step; it is the last resort. There is a period of time when things are less painful for the children and maybe also for the parents and the grandparents. As well, this section applies to any child, whether there is a divorce or one of the parents dies. I don't know if it's important, but I think it might be an interesting way to look at the problem.

I was going to talk about mediation, but both of you, Mrs. Bremmer and Mrs. Moreau, practically told us that mediation does not work. I find that very disturbing because, usually, mediation brings about a change in attitudes. When parents divorce and also, I imagine, when one of them dies, peoples' attitudes harden and it is very difficult for them to change.

Could you give me further details about what happened and the reasons why family mediation did not work.

[English]

Ms Moreau: In our case, we attempted the mediation as requested, as our first step, of course. He attended once. Because we had not seen the children for birthdays, Christmas or anything, we requested an appointment where we could bring all the gifts that we had sitting at home for the children. He said no, that these gifts would be bribes to get the children to love us, and he did not want this. He never returned to any of the further mediation. He just said, “No, I am not taking part in this, and that is all there is to it.” Our ac cess was cut off, and that was the end of it.

For that reason, in my recommendations, I recommended that if mediation takes place, both parties should have to do it or serious consideration should be given as to why the one party does not want to take part in it. It could work if the parties were obligated to do it. Since they are not obligated to do it now, they can just walk out. It is a simple matter. In our case, the mediator phoned the children's father at work, and he said, "No, I am not coming back, and that is all there is to it."

[Translation]

Ms Alarie: I don't have any statistics because it's still rather new, but since 1997, in Quebec, mediation is compulsory in matrimonial or family causes. I think the minimum is six hours and all parties must be present. Unfortunately, I don't know if it's successful or not, but I'm looking for every possible solution to make such situations less painful. I would like you to give it some thought.

[English]

Ms Luyken: On page 5 of our brief, we did suggest that voluntary mediation be encouraged and undertaken first, and that should that fail, then the courts should impose mediation. Should that fail, then there should be a settlement conference, and if that fails, the courts should impose a settlement. We did suggest that the parties be forced to participate in mediation.

Ms Moreau: You said that in Quebec, they all met together. In our case, we were not allowed to meet together. The mediators met with us, and then they contacted him, and then he came in. They did not want us together. He was able to say, "No, I am not coming in."

Senator Cohen: The other day, some legal experts appeared before us and mentioned that they did not think mediation worked. They suggested early intervention, perhaps not necessarily judicial but by a psychologist or a third party, before the war starts. Perhaps with early intervention, the grandparents' rights can be discussed with the parents in a safe haven. The children can see that there are stable relationships, even though theirs has broken apart. Perhaps you should consider the early-intervention tool before there is a real problem.

Ms Luyken: I would like to tell you what happened in our case. We had an assessment by a clinical psychologist, but this was later on. It might be a good idea to have this early, at the beginning, because it was right after that that our daughter-in-law suggested that they try to get together again. The clinical psychologist was excellent. He saw them; he saw them with the children; he saw us; he saw us with the children. We all tried the same little tests. Then he also talked with the little boy. By this time, I think he was about three, and he drew some pictures and so on. I think that every

Ms Moreau: There is a difference, though. You are referring to mediation. We have been through mediation, and we have also been through what Ms Luyken is talking about, the psychological assessment. We have just been through it again. It has really brought out many things that no mediation could ever have touched on. It is totally in favour of the grandparents continuing to see the children. The children would go in saying, "No, they are not our grandparents," but as the people doing the assessment started to talk to them, they started to say how much they loved their grandparents. It works ou

Senator Jessiman: It is obvious that the problem usually arises from the custodial parent, not the non-custodial parent who has access, because the one who has access can invite his parents over or he can share his access with them.

I also assume that you would all like something similar to what they have in the Civil Code in Quebec. Section 611 of the Quebec Civil Code states that maintaining relations between grandparents and grandchildren is in the best interests of the child and should therefore not be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated to a court that maintaining that contact is not in the child's best interests. Do you agree with that?

Ms Luyken: Yes.

Senator Jessiman: There has been a suggestion that we could amend section 16 of the Divorce Act, which involves grandparents because they are neither one of the immediate parties to this nor one of the spouses. At the present time, you must go to court to make an application. We are suggesting that in making an order under section 16, the court should give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with the parents of both spouses as is consistent with the best interests of the child, and for that purpose the court should take into consideration the willin

Ms George: That is exactly what we would like.

Senator Jessiman: I am glad that we are getting along well.

I should like to refer you to one other matter. A study was done in 1994 by Catherine Bostock. Her research can be found in the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. She found that 50 states now have statutes that grant grandparents the right to seek court-ordered visitation. You have that right, too, but there is an extra step involved for you. This woman argues that shifting the legal rights among family members may have negative consequences for children and their parents, such as increased family strife and legal costs that may be imposed by grandparents seeking to enforce access ri

I should like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with this point. It is suggested that judges, by imposing visitation against parents' wishes, may be creating long-term, psychological stress for the child. For example, the mother may not want you to have access but the court gives you access. The argument is that it may not be in the best interests of the child to do so. Under those circumstances, should you not leave it up to the judge? We should not impose upon a custodial parent the extra problem that custody or access must be given up for some period of time if it will be detrime

You can see that there are problems with giving grandparents rights and actually putting them in a statute. You do have that right now, even though there is the extra step for third parties, which includes grandparents. If we have the amendment that I suggested or have something similar to what they have in the Quebec code, I think we would be going a long way to answering your concerns. I am all for your cause because I am a grandparent, too.

Ms Mather: To continue the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren would far outweigh any possible damages. I think the custodial parent quite often has fears of giving up control because of the animosity that has built up between the parents of the child. If access is given to the grandparents, eventually the parent would see that there is no harm being done to the child and would probably very much appreciate the involvement of the grandparents.

Senator Jessiman: I agree, but I think you would also agree that that does not apply to all grandparents. There are only certain people who are great grandparents.

Ms Mather: That is correct, but with the majority of grandparents, the relationship would be good.

Mr. Lowther: I applaud Grandparents Requesting Access & Dignity on their submission. I thought it was good because at the end it makes some specific recommendations as to how we might change sections of the Divorce Act here. However, I want to explore the intent.

If the changes that you suggested were to be made, is the grandparent then on equal footing with the parents as far as the Divorce Act is concerned? Is there not the danger that we would have the mother, the father and the grandparents all being part of a three-ring circus?

Ms Moreau: No. Any grandparent to whom I have ever spoken knows that the parents are first. Grandparents are always secondary to the parents.

Mr. Lowther: That is your intent?

Ms Moreau: Yes.

Mr. Lowther: We heard a suggestion that if there is to be a separation, the parents should go through some sort of counselling or be shown a videotape presentation of the impact on the child when parents are derogatory towards one another. Studies show that if one parent puts down the other parent to the child, the child actually resents the parent who was putting down the other one. Some of this rock throwing works against the party that is doing it.

Do you think that it might be prudent to include the grandparents in this counselling circle if there is to be separation so that everyone understands the impact of putting down one set of parents over another?

Ms Luyken: I would think so. When faced with that situation, we are all new at it. I think it would be worthwhile.

Mr. Lowther: If these changes that you proposed were made, would that be all you are seeking, or are there other things still hanging out there? Are you simply going after this change but holding back on other things?

Ms Mather: The concern, then, would become enforcement of what is put into the act. Although such changes have been made in Australia - and, I found that out this morning - they are now very concerned about enforcement.

If the changes that we want are put into the act, it will bring about an attitude change in judges and in all people involved. It will bring about expectations of grandparents, too. They would expect to be treated in a different way because they would be getting better status under the act. I think it would also bring about a change in the attitude of the parents and all parties involved.

Mr. Lowther: That attitudinal change or expectation change is that the grandparents will be presumed to be part of the equation right at the beginning rather than an afterthought where someone says, "If they want to be in it, they can lobby to get into the program"?

Ms Luyken: Yes.

Senator Cools: I should like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for what I thought were very sensitive and thoughtful presentations. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank Ms Bakopanos for that particular note of appreciation to her own parents. It is nice to say “Thank you” once in a while to our parents.

Ms George, at the end of your presentation you were about to say something about false accusations of abuse involving grandparents, and then the chairman asked you to speed up. You then went directly to your conclusions. Perhaps you could put on the record the case to which you wished to refer.

Ms George: Yes. It is the case of T.K.B. vs. E.L.M. from the British Columbia Supreme Court with Justice Edwards. It is about a father and grandparents who were accused of sexually abusing a two-year-old girl.

Would you like me to read it?

Senator Cools: Just a sentence or two. I collect these cases and I am very eager to add this one to my arsenal.

Ms George: This little girl was examined three times and no evidence of abuse was found. Also, when questioned by the police, she did not disclose abuse. She was seen by psychologists. Although there was no abuse disclosed, the mother put the child in treatment for sexual abuse. Even if that young child was not abused, she would think that she had been.

Also, the boyfriend of the mother of the little girl purchased a gun and told the child that he had done so to protect her from her father. Therefore, although the child was not abused, she was now fearful of the father. The father and the grandparents lost access.

Senator Cools: In the particular case that you are citing, the grandparents were also falsely accused?

Ms George: Yes.

Senator Cools: That is quite common.

I was originally going to ask you about instances in which grandparents are not themselves falsely accused but, in the process of supporting their son, in most cases, who is falsely accused, they exhaust their personal financial resources. I was very interested in the remarks at the beginning of the presentations where you spoke about the number of individuals in family breakdowns who must resort to their parents for financial support, board and lodging in these difficult times. This adds to that.

I wish to put on record the case of Plesh vs. Plesh from Manitoba in 1992. In that case, a very eminent judge, Mr. Justice Carr, in a case of false allegations, speaks to the issue of the mother setting out to punish the father by taking revenge in this terrible way.

Mr. Justice Carr makes this statement:

This is a classic example of a family law case gone amok$. It is the sort of case that from time to time has prompted our appellate court and our Chief Justice to comment with amazement at how a seemingly simple matter snowballs and only stops when the financial resources of the parties (and often of their parents) are depleted.

Mr. Justice Carr is speaking to this particular situation.

In so many cases, your members have had to reparent their children. Have you gathered any data on members who may have exhausted their financial resources supporting their children in these circumstances?

Ms George: There are quite a few in our group whose sons were falsely accused of sexually abusing little children in order to stop access to the father and his family.

Senator Cools: If you have more anecdotal data, I should like to receive it. I have a file on this issue.

Ms George: We will get something to you.

Senator DeWare: I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us this afternoon. I need not remind you why this committee was formed. During the proceedings on the amendments to the Divorce Act last year, nearly every witness before the committee wanted to talk about custody and access rather than child support. Therefore, we advised the minister that this was a very serious situation which he should take under consideration. He did so and we appreciate that we are able to have these hearings.

With regard to the recommendations of Grandparents Requesting Access & Dignity, it is ironic that your recommended addition to section 61(1) of the Divorce Act includes the words “that a court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person.” “Any other person” is already in the act. Perhaps non-grandparents would not see it the way we do, but grandparents wonder why they would not come before “any other person.” I can see no reason why we could not recommend that that be added to the act.

Senator Jessiman's recommended amendment is almost word-for-word your recommended addition to section 16(10). We must look at this seriously.

Ms Luyken, I see that you people have done quite a bit of work on mediation. I believe that mediation is important. I know that in Alberta there is a mediation program which works quite well.

The first person who sees a divorcing couple usually is a lawyer. How can we insist that, where possible, a lawyer recommends mediation before litigation?

Ms Luyken: Many of the more recent graduates from law school are also mediators, which is great. In Kitchener-Waterloo there is an association of family-law lawyers. Possibly those associations could be encouraged to encourage their members to recommend mediation first.

Senator DeWare: We are mainly talking about family-law practitioners?

Ms Luyken: I think so, although there are many mediators who are not lawyers.

Senator DeWare: I believe that one of the keys to this situation is to go to mediation before going to court.

Ms Luyken: Perhaps voluntary mediation could be legislated and, in the event of the failure of that, there could be court-imposed mediation.

Ms Mather: Although I may not look like it, I am a new lawyer, and we are required to suggest mediation first. The only way that someone would find out that we did not do so would be if a complaint were filed with the law society. However, it is stressed very strongly in law school that we are to encourage mediation rather than the court route.

Senator DeWare: Someone mentioned that joint mediation can be difficult because of the circumstances between the two spouses and that it is better to have it separated. I suppose that is why they say “mediation where possible.”

Ms Mather: Yes. Sometimes you have to wait for a period of time until things settle down, and then mediation might work.

Senator DeWare: A Senate committee studied post-secondary education last year and dealt with the issue that education is forever. I compliment you on your achievement, Ms Mather.

Senator Cohen: A lawyer in Halifax appeared before another committee I am sitting on dealing with guidelines. Her firm deals only with family law and has an early-intervention parenting group. They insist that parents avail themselves of this group before they take the next step. Perhaps that is an amendment we could consider, and maybe grandparents should be included in another area. I just wanted to add that.

Mr. Lowther: I need some advice from those of you who have experienced the pain of this situation.

My own mother loves to play with my kids. I can only imagine the pain that you have gone through, and some of these stories detail it. Apart from grandparents' access, could you give us some insight into what we do with this question? Even after going through the counselling and having resolved many of these issues, there are still cases where someone is not getting access to the children, even though the courts have said they should. Those might be the minority of cases, but they are still there. Those cases represent the hard nut that we are trying to crack.

In this committee we heard the story of lady who was incarcerated because she did not give access. The father went to court something like 41 times, and finally the judge ruled that she should be incarcerated. We have discussed the custodial parent perhaps actually losing custody to the other parent if they were not going to honour the court's decision.

We have talked about mediation, but one cannot mediate forever. There will be some cases where mediation does not work.

In my own constituency, I have had people come to me and say, “Well, I will not pay support because I cannot get access, but I would pay if she honoured the access.” They use that as a hammer too.

Since you have been close to this issue, I would like some advice on what you see as a way to deal with these cases. I know there is probably no silver bullet. Do you have any ideas you like better than others, or do you have other solutions to put on the table to deal with cases where someone has been granted access by the court but cannot get it? “No” is not a good answer.

Ms Moreau: The parent who is denying the access is obviously not considering what is best for that child. If it is granted, then it is best for the child.

Maybe the court is giving the custody to the wrong parent. If that person does not care about how the child feels or what is best for that child, then I think the court perhaps reconsider who should have custody of the child.

Senator DeWare: We are seriously considering talking to someone who is a victim of divorce and asking them what would have made it easier. We want to know where did the courts go wrong, and what would they like to have seen happen to make their life or the life of their family easier. Do you think we would be infringing on privacy if we were to pursue this? Do you think we could get some answers? Is that an area we should explore?

Ms Luyken: If a child did not want to talk to you, you would not be infringing on their privacy. If they want to talk, let them talk to you.

In talking to her grandson, one of our members said, “It must be nice to be at your age now because you can choose where you want to live, with your mother or your father.” He said, “No, I would rather have the judge do it, because if I choose mom, dad will be mad, and if I choose dad, mom will be mad.”

Senator DeWare: How old a child are you talking about?

Ms Luyken: He would be 13, perhaps.

Senator DeWare: We would be more concerned about 20 year-olds or 30 year-olds.

Ms Luyken: You are not infringing on anyone's privacy at that age. If they want to talk to you, they will. Thirteen might be a little young.

That would be a good idea. I expect that if I am allowed to talk to students in family study classes at school, I will probably learn a great deal. They can probably tell me a thing or two.

Senator DeWare: I never thought about the grandparent aspect, but that might be something we could pursue to get the information we are looking for. We want to know how important it would have been to them if their grandparents were given access.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Pearson): I would like to tell you how enormously I have appreciated your presentation. As a grandparent of ten, including three whose parents are divorced, I can relate very deeply to your situations. I have been fortunate that the divorced family has been acting in the children's best interests.

I also feel strongly about the rights of a child to have his or her relationship with grandparents and with the extended family. Indeed, it is a question of a right to a child's identity, along with everything else, and I will do everything I can to ensure that this is dealt with in some way.

Ms Bremmer raised the issue of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I was glad to have that on the record. Both Ms Luyken and Ms Moreau spoke about sessions in which children had an opportunity to express their desire to have some contact with their grandparents. I was pleased to hear that.

Do you have any further recommendations about how children can be involved in those kinds of processes? Could you elaborate a bit on your own experience to show us what the model was?

Ms Moreau: The only opportunity for the children to speak out was through the psychological assessment done with a psychiatrist who could really read the child. As he said, the child's mind had been poisoned, but through his work he was able to determine what the children really felt.

That also had an impact on the economics of such a situation, too. It was so costly. This was ordered by the court. The judge said that he was hearing both sides and he did not know whom to believe. To help him make a decision, he had to send us there and see what the psychiatrist said, to see who was telling the truth. We had no choice in going, and it was a lot of money.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Pearson): You had to pay for it as well?

Ms Moreau: Yes. My husband is retired with only half of a heart that works, so we are not making a lot of money right now. We had to borrow.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Pearson): So those assessments should take place earlier, when they are less expensive?

Ms Moreau: Right. The mediation was not costly. When you get to a psychological assessment, while it is the only place where the children are able to give their opinions, it costs highly.

Ms Luyken: I think ours cost $6,000, but it was the best $6,000 we spent. Our grandson was about three and the psychiatrist asked him to draw, if he were on an island, whom would he want to be there? He drew his father first, apparently. Then he drew his mom, and his little sister quite close to his mom. He was in the picture too, of course. The psychologist was very interested in the fact that this child had a real concept of family because he included this little baby sister of his. As I say, it was a lot of money but it was really worthwhile. He told us it would take him about 13 hours to w

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): We do not allow commercials here.

Ms George: For us, it cost over $35,000 in legal fees. We had the family assessment first and the assessment was very good and in our favour, but the judge decided to overlook it. We have to give the tools to our judges, but we also have to educate them. That is very important.

[Translation]

Ms Alarie: When parents divorce, what is the percentage of grandparents who have to go to court to have access to their grandchildren? Do you have any data on this?

Ms George: Not many grandparents can go to court because it is so expensive; you have to remember that many of our members have only small pensions to live on.

Ms Alarie: On this document, it says: Grandparents' Association. I was wondering whether it was a grandmothers' association or really a group of grandparents.

Ms George: It's a grandparents' association.

Ms Alarie: Good! I was just curious, that's all.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gallaway): Thank you all for coming. I should point out, because this is being televised, that while I want to thank the grandmothers who are here today, I also want to thank the grandfathers for their last-minute demonstration at the back of the room.

The committee adjourned.