1. Kooner v. Kooner (1989), 19 R.F.L. (3d) 221 (B.C. Co.Ct.) at 222–24.

2. Akister v. Rasmussen (1991), 30 R.F.L. (3d) 346 (Sask. Q.B.) at 347.

3. Statistics Canada, “Wife Assault: The Findings of a National Survey” (1994)Google Scholar14.9 Juristat (Catalogue No. 85-000). Statistics Canada's use of terms “spousal” and “marital” partner includes common law as well as marital relationships.

4. Jaffee, P., Wolfe, D. & Wilson, S., Children of Battered Women (London: Sage, 1990) at 20Google Scholar.

5. Ibid. at 16.

6. If family violence and abuse are to be eradicated, we must be sensitive to the fact that men as well as women report being victimized by abuse. See Straus, M. & Gelles, R., “Societal Change and Change in Family Violence 1975-1985” (1986) 48 Journal of Marriage and the Family 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is important not to denigrate, trivialize or ignore the experiences of men. At the same time, however, it would be inequitable to ignore the particular vulnerabilities of women. See Dobash, R. et al. , “The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence” (1992) 39 Social Problems 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, J., “Domestic Violence and Parent-Child Relationships in Families Disputing Custody” (1994) 3:2Family Mediation 11Google Scholar; Moyer, I., The Changing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System (Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waverland, 1992)Google Scholar; DeKeseready, W., “In Defense of Self-defense: Demystifying Female Violence Against Male Intimates” in Hinch, R., ed., Crosscurrent Debates in Canadian Society (Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson, 1992)Google Scholar; Ellis, D., Family Mediation Pilot Project Final Report (Oakville, Ont.: Ellis, 1994) at 35Google Scholar. Consequently, when discussing partner or spousal abuse generally, the female gender is used when referring to the victim and the male gender when referring to the abuser. The intention is not to ignore or to trivialize the experiences of men, but rather to avoid the objectification and dehumanization that accompanies the use of gender-neutral language.

7. Fisher, D., “Why Parents Run” (1990) 5:1Journal of Interpersonal Violence 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaffee, Wolfe & Wilson, supra note 4 at 108; Leighton, B., Spousal Abuse in Metropolitan Toronto: Research Report on the Response of the Criminal Justice System (Report 1989-92) (Ottawa: Solicitor General, 1989)Google Scholar; Sherman, L., Policing Domestic Violence (New York: Free Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

8. Kurz, D., “Separation, Divorce, and Women Abuse” (1996) 2:1Violence Against Women 63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Mahoney, M., “Legal Images of Battered Women: Redefining the Issue of Separation” (1991) 90 Mich. L. Rev. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Canada's recent National Survey on Violence Against Women (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1993)Google Scholar found that one fifth of the women who reported violence by a previous partner stated that the violence occurred following or during separation and one third of these women reported that the violence increased in severity at the time of separation.

9. Luhman, N., Essays on Self-Reference (New York: Columbia University Press, 190)Google Scholar; Kerruish, V., Jurisprudence as Ideology (London: Routledge, 1991)Google Scholar; Treviño, A. J., The Sociology of Law (New York: St. Martin's, 1996) at 58Google Scholar.

10. Cahn, L., “Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Child Custody Decisions” (1991) 44:55Vand. L. Rev. 1041Google Scholar; Hart, B. J., “Gentle Jeopardy: The Further Endangerment of Battered Women and Children in Custody Mediation” (1990) 7:4Mediation Quarterly 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaffee, Wolfe & Wilson, supra note 4 at 29, 109; Johnston, J., Kline, M. & Tschann, J., “Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access” (1989) 59:4American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 576CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Leighton, supra note 7; Pagelow, M., ”Effects of Domestic Violence on Children and Their Consequences for Custody and Visitation Agreements” (1990) 7:4Mediation Quarterly 347CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Emery, R., Marriage, Divorce and Children's Adjustment (London: Sage, 1987)Google Scholar; Hetherington, A., Cox, M. & Cox, R., “Family Interaction and the Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Development of Children Following Divorce” in Vaughan, V. & Brazelton, T., eds., The Family: Setting Priorities (New York: Science and Medicine, 1979)Google Scholar; Jacobson, G. & Jacobson, D., “Impact of Marital Dissolution on Adults and Children: The Significance of Loss and Continuity” in Bloom-Feshback, J. & S. Bloom-Feshback, , eds., The Psychology of Separation and Loss (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987)Google Scholar; Johnston, J., Gonzalez, R. & Campbell, L., “Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict and Child Disturbance” (1987) 15:4Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 493CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Johnston, Kline & Tschann, supra note 10; Pagelow, supra note 10; Shepard, M., “Child Visiting and Domestic Abuse” (1992) 71 Child Welfare 356Google Scholar.

12. Maccoby, E., Depner, C. & Mnookin, R., “Co-Parenting in the Second Year After Divorce” in Folberg, J., ed., Joint Custody and Shared Parenting (New York: Guilford, 1991) 132Google Scholar; Nelson, R., “Parental Hostility, Conflict and Communication in Joint and Sole Custody Families” (1989) 13:2Journal of Divorce 145CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. It seems that a minority of men who abuse their partners will also abuse their children. See Pagelow, supra note 10; Saunders, D., “Child Custody Decisions in Families Experiencing Women Abuse” (1994) 39:1Social Work 151Google ScholarPubMed; Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A., “Woman-Battering, Child Abuse and Social Heredity: What Is the Relationship?” (1985) Marital Violence 147Google Scholar; Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A., “Women and Children at Risk: A Feminist Perspective on Child Abuse” (1988) 18:1International Journal of Health Services 97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed [hereinafter “Women and Children at Risk”]. However, the figures—generally considered to be in the range of 20 to 50 percent—warrant concern.

14. For example Cahn supra note 10; Families in Transition, Custody and Access: A Response to the Department of Justice Discussion Paper (Toronto: Family in Transition, 1993)Google Scholar; Department of Justice, Custody and Access: Public Discussion Paper (Ottawa: Minister of Justice, 1993)Google Scholar; Keenan, L., “Domestic Violence and Custody Litigation: The Need For Statutory Reform” (1988) 13:378 Hofstra L. Rev. 407Google Scholar; National Symposium on Women, Law and Administration of Justice, Proceedings of the Symposium (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1991)Google Scholar.

15. The term “partner” is intended to include adult sexual or intimate partners, who cohabit on a frequent basis, whether married or not, and whether of the same or opposite gender. The terms “spousal, woman and partner abuse,” when used throughout this paper, are intended to incorporate emotional or psychological as well as physical and sexual violence and abuse. Regrettably, financial abuse could not be included with any degree of consistency, because much of the legal system analysis is based on reported cases and this type of abuse is not commonly discussed by the judges.

16. Johnston, J. and Campbell, L., “Parent-child Relationships in Domestic Violence Families Disputing Custody” (1993) 31:3Family and Conciliation Courts Review 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. The use of the term “evolution” is not intended to convey the notion of linear progression but only the notion of continual change.

18. Kerruish, supra note 9; Treviño, supra note 9 at 63.

19. For example, Abel, R., “Law as Lag: Inertia as a Social Theory of Law” (1982) 80 Mich. L. Rev. 785CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abel, R. & Lewis, P., eds., Lawyers in Society: Comparative Theories (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Brooke, R., Law, Justice and Social Policy (London: Croom Helm, 1979)Google Scholar; Evan, W., Social Structure and Law (Newbury Park, Ca: Sage, 1990)Google Scholar; Hunt, A., The Sociological Movement in Law (London: MacMillan, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Masters, R. & Grater, M., eds., The Sense of Justice Biological Foundations of Law (Newbury Park, Ca: Sage, 1992)Google Scholar; Parsons, T., Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966)Google Scholar; Treviño, supra note 9; Weber, M., Law in Economy and Society, trans. Shils, E. & Rheinstein, M. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954)Google Scholar. For similar conclusions reached in other contexts, see Sacco, V., “Images of Public Opinion in the Study of Legal Control” in Boyd, N., ed., The Social Dimensions of Law (Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall, 1986) 86Google Scholar; Dupuis, M., “An Analysis of Legal Status of Same Sex Relationships: The Impact of Culture, Society and History in Legal Process in the United States and Denmark” (1995) 9 International Journal of Law and the Family 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Monture-Okanee, P., “The Violence We Women Do: A First Nations View” in Dawson, T. Brettel, ed., Women, Law and Social Change (North York, Ont.: Captus, 1993) 132Google Scholar.

21. See also Solomen, A., “Songs for the People: Teachings on the Natural Way” in Banfield, J., ed., Readings in Law and Society (North York, Ont.: Captus, 1995) 227Google Scholar; M. E. Turpel, “Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Contradictions and Challenges” in Banfield, ed., ibid. 231; M. Boldt & J. A. Long, “Tribal Philosophies and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” in Banfield, ed., ibid. 239.

22. See also Lund, B., Morris, C. & Duryea, M. L., Conflict and Culture Report of the Multiculturalsim and Dispute Resolution Project (Victoria: Uvic Institute for Dispute Resolution, 1994)Google Scholar; Bartholomew, A. & Boyd, S., “Towards a Political Economy of Law” in Clement, W. & Williams, G., eds., The New Canadian Political Economy (Kingston: McGill-Queen's, 1989)Google Scholar; Kerruish, supra note 9.

23. Sumner, W. G., Essays of William Graham Sumner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934)Google Scholar [hereinafter Essays].

24. Turpel, supra note 21.

25. Ibid. at 234.

26. Ibid. See also Monture-Okanee, supra note 20.

27. For example, Masters & Gruter, supra note 19; Lund, Morris & Duryea, supra note 22; Sumner, W. G., Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals (Boston: Ginn, 1940)Google Scholar [hereinafater Folkways].

28. Lund, Morris & Duryea, ibid.

29. Schmitt, R., Marx and Engels: A Critical Reconstruction (Boulder, Co: Westview, 1987) 30Google Scholar.

30. Chambliss, W. & Seidman, R., Law, Order and Power (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1982)Google Scholar; Poulantzas, N., “The Problem of the Capitalist State” in Blackburn, R., ed.. Ideology in the Social Sciences (New York: Pantheon, 1972)Google Scholar; R. Miliband, “Reply to Poulantzas” in Blackburn, ibid.; Quinney, R., Critique of Legal Order (Boston: Little Brown, 1974)Google Scholar; Wood, A., “The Marxian Critique of Justice” in Cohen, M. et al. , eds., Marx, Justice and History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980) 3Google Scholar; Woodiwiss, A., Social Theory After Postmodernism Rethinking Production, Law and Class (London: Pluto, 1990)Google Scholar.

31. Kairys, D., ed., The Politics of Law (New York: Pantheon, 1982) at 3–5Google Scholar.

32. T. B. Dawson, “Mapping Law: An Introduction to Core Concepts in Legal Studies and Women's Studies” in Brettel Dawson, ed., supra note 20,154.

33. S. Boyd & E. Sheeley, “Feminism and the Law in Canada: An Overview” in T. Brettel Dawson, ed., ibid. 181 at 181, 183, 185 [hereinafter “Overview”].

34. Durkheim, E., The Rules of Sociological Method (New York: Free Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Durkheim, E., The Division of Labor in Society (New York: Free Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Pound, R., Social Control Through Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942)Google Scholar.

35. Fiss, O., “Objectivity and Interpretation” in Levinson, S. & Mailloux, S., ed., Interpreting Law and Literature (Evanston: Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1988) 232Google Scholar.

36. Weber, supra note 19; Parsons, supra note 19; Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish (New York: Pantheon, 1977)Google Scholar. See also Morrow, R. & Brown, D., Critical Theory and Methodology (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994)Google Scholar.

37. Galanter, M., “Why the ‘Haves’ Come out Ahead: Speculation on the Limits of Legal Change” in Department of Law Casebook Group, ed., Introduction to Legal Studies (North York: Captus, 1995) 225Google Scholar.

38. Hunt, A., Explorations in Law and Society: Towards a Constitutive Theory of Law (London: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar.

39. Brooke, supra note 19.

40. The following discussion will be limited to social factors that appear to have influenced Canadian law.

41. S. Boyd, “From Gender Specificity to Gender Neutrality? Ideologies in Canadian Child Custody Law” in Banfield, ed., supra note 21, 382 [hereinafter “From Gender Specificity to Gender Neutrality”].

42. Ursell, J., Private Lives, Public Policy (Toronto: Women's Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Glendon, M. A., The New Family and New Property (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981)Google Scholar.

43. Hamilton, R., “Women, Wives, and Mothers” in Richardson, C. J., ed., Family Life: Patterns and Perspectives (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1996) 110Google Scholar; Oakley, A., Housewife (London: Allen Lane, 1974)Google Scholar; Young, M. & Willmott, P., The Symmetrical Family (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975)Google Scholar. See also Glendon, ibid. and Collier, R., Masculinity, Law and the Family (London: Routledge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. Abel, R., 'The Contradictions of Professionalism” in School of Justice Studies, Arizona State University, New Directions in the Study of Justice, Law and Social Control (New York: Plenum, 1990) 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bush, R., “The Economic Significance of Access to Justice: An Analysis of Resource Allocation to Dispute Resolution Services in Relation to Public Policy-Making and the Public Interest” in Cappelletti, M. & Garth, B., eds., Access to Justice: Emerging Issues and Perspectives (Milan: Sijthoff & Noordhoff–Alphen Aandenrign, 1979) 191Google Scholar; Friedman, L., “Access to Justice: Social and Historical Context” in Cappelletti, M. & Weisner, J., eds., Access to Justice Promising Institutions (Milan: Sijthoff & Noordhoff–Alphenandenrign, 1978) 5Google Scholar; Leat, D., “The Rise and Role of the Poor Man's Lawyer” (1975) 2 Brit. J. of Law & Soc. 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar; National Council on Welfare, Legal Aid and the Poor (Ottawa: Supply & Services, 1995) at 1Google Scholar.

45. Glendon, supra note 42 at 107; Collier, supra note 43 at 218,229.

46. Supra notes 42,43 and 45.

47. Hamilton, supra note 43; Shanley, M., Feminism, Marriage, and the Law in Victorian England, 1850-1895 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989) at 6Google Scholar.

48. Eversley, W. P., The Law of Domestic Relations (London: Stevens & Haynes, 1906) at 3, 509Google Scholar.

49. Sargent, N., “The Possibilities and Perils of Legal Studies” (1991) 6 C.J.L.S. 1 at 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. M. Green, “The History of Canadian Narcotics Control: The Formative Years” in Boyd, ed., supra note 19, 24.

51. Woodiwiss, supra note 30 at 121.

52. Ignatieff, M., “State, Civil Society and the Total Institutions: A Critique of Recent Social Histories of Punishment” in Tonry, M. & Morris, N., eds., Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of the Research, vol. 3 192Google Scholar; Hunt, supra note 38.

53. Treviño, supra note 9 at 33. I have taken the liberty of adding the words ”dominant” and “these” in order better to place Treviño's comment in context.

54. Ursel, supra note 42; Glendon, supra note 42 at 129; Gordon, L., ed., Women, the State and Welfare (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Hamilton, supra note 43.

55. Ursel, ibid.; Glendon, ibid.; Gordon, ed., ibid.

56. Glendon, ibid. at 107; Collier, supra note 43.

57. Hamilton, supra note 43; Oakley, supra note 43; Young & Willmott, supra note 43.

58. Supra note 43. See also Shanley, supra note 47; Collier, supra note 43.

59. While theorists disagree about the specific stages, mechanics, and causes of professionalization, they agree that professions are social creations. See Dingwall, R., The Social Organization of Health Visitor Training (London: Croom Helm, 1977)Google Scholar; Elliott, P., The Sociology of the Professions (London: MacMillan, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Freidson, E., Professional Powers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Goode, W., “The Theoretical Limits of Professionalization” in Etzioni, A., ed., The Semi-Professions and Their Organization Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers (New York: Free Press, 1969) 266Google Scholar.

60. Foucault, M., The Order of Things (New York: Vintage, 1973)Google Scholar.

61. Gelner, E., Plough, Sword, and Book (London: Collins Harvill, 1988)Google Scholar.

62. See Elliott, supra note 59 at 94, 112, 150; Goode, supra note 59 at 277; MacDonald, K., The Sociology of the Professions (London: Sage, 1995)Google Scholar; Murray, T., Dingwall, R. & Eekelaar, J., “Professions in Bureaucracies: Solicitors in Private Practice and Local Government” in Dingwall, R. & Lewis, P., eds., The Sociology of the Professions (London: MacMillan, 1983) 197Google Scholar.

63. Mannheim, K., Ideology and Utopia, trans. Shils, E., (New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1936)Google Scholar. See also D. Cheal, “The One and the Many: Modernity and Post-modernity” in Richardson, ed., supra note 43, 52 who argues in a different context that academic and professional theories about the family often follow social changes in family life.

64. Bowlky, J., Child Care and the Growth of Love (Baltimore: Penguin, 1953)Google Scholar.

65. Parsons, T. & Bales, R., Family Socialization and Interaction Process (New York: Free Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

66. Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; Linton v. Clarke (1994), 50 R.F.L. (3d) 8 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Linton v. Clarke (1995), 10 R.F.L. (4th) 92 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); Richardson v. Gardner (1995), 11 R.F.L. (4th) 292 (Ont. Ct. (Prov. Div.)); Weaver v. Tate (1990), 28 R.F.L. (3d) 188 (Ont. C.A.).

67. Re Orr, [1933] O.R. 212 (Ont. C.A.).

68. “From Gender Specifity to Gender Neutrality”, supra note 41 at 382.

69. Gauci v. Gauci (1973), 9 R.F.L. 189 (Ont. H.C.J.) at 192.

70. Theoretical and political persuasions will cause some to argue that this phenomenon occurs because law is acting to preserve is own legitimacy in the social order, or because law is a social control mechanism controlled by the powerful, or because law reflects the patriarchal structure of the social order. Others will claim that this process occurs because, in an effort to be fair and just, law seeks answers from the best sources of knowledge that it can. Undoubtedly, each claim has at least limited validity, depending of which aspects of law are examined, through whose eyes. And, certainly, it is without question that law traditionally has responded to social issues in a patriarchal fashion. But I have no wish to argue causality here. My intention is more mundane: to argue that law and professional knowledge mutually reinforce the legitimacy of each other's reflection of the power relationships in social orders.

71. “From Gender Specificity to Gender Neutrality?”, supra note 68 126 at 133–34.

72. It is perhaps interesting to note that, in addition to discriminating against women who choose to pursue careers, this dominant social conceptualization—that women should exercise power in the private domain, leaving the public domain to men—also discriminated against men who did not fit the typical “heterosexual, father, wage-earner” conceptualization of “man” current at the time. See Collier, supra note 43 for an interesting discussion of how law has characterized masculinity.

73. Department of Justice, Evaluation of Divorce Act, Phase 11: Monitoring and Evaluation (Ottawa: Bureau of Review, 1990)Google Scholar; Department of Justice, supra note 14.

74. Davis, G., Partisans and Mediators (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988)Google Scholar; Davis, G., Cretney, S. & Collins, J., Simple Quarrels (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)Google Scholar; Erlanger, H., Chambliss, E. & Melli, M., “Participation and Flexibility in Informal Processes: Cautions from the Divorce Context” (1987) 21:4Law and Society Review 585CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gulliver, P. H., Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross Cultural Perspective (New York: Academic, 1979) 223Google Scholar; Ingleby, R., Solicitors and Divorce (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) at 32–33, 169–77Google Scholar; Felstiner, W. & Sarat, A., “Negotiation Between Lawyer and Client in an American Divorce” in Dingwall, R. & Eekelaar, J., eds., Divorce Mediation and the Legal Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Mnookin, R. H. & Kornhauser, L., “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce” (1979) 88 Yale L.J. 950CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75. Erlanger, Chambliss & Melli, ibid.

76. Sarat, A. and Felstiner, W., “Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer's Office” (1986) 20:1Law and Society Review 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77. Teachmen, J. & Polonko, K., “Negotiating Divorce Outcomes: Can We Identify Patterns in Divorce Settlements?” (1990) 52 Journal of Marriage and the Family 129 at 135Google Scholar. But see Ingleby, supra note 74 at 61.

78. Glendon, supra note 42; Oakley, supra note 43; Ursel, supra note 42.

79. Talsky v. Talsky, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 293.

80. For example, the federal Divorce Act, 1985 in 1986; Alberta: Child Welfare Act 1984 S.A. 1984, c. C–8.1Google Scholar; British Columbia: Family Relations Act 1979, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121Google Scholar; Manitoba: The Child Custody Enforcement Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C–360Google Scholar; New Brunswick: Family Services Act, S.N.B. 1980, c. C–2.1Google Scholar; Ontario: Family Law Reform Act 1986, c. 4Google Scholar; Prince Edward Island: The Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C–33Google Scholar; Family Law Reform Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. F–3Google Scholar; Northwest Territories: Domestic Relations Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. D–8Google Scholar; Yukon: Children's Act, R.S.Y 1986, c. 22Google Scholar.

81. See supra notes 41, 42 and 44.

82. See Glendon, supra note 42; Ursel, supra note 42 at 292.

83. I. Théry, “The Interest of the Child and the Regulation of the Post-Divorce Family” in Smart, supra note 71 at 80 suggests that law reflects a reconceptualized family—from a collective unit—to one composed of individual rights. I have taken the liberty of adding the word “responsibilities” because, as we shall see, the extended definition of “family”—a consequence of the normalization of divorce—extended individual responsibilities, not to the collective, but to individual “family” members.

84. Ibid. See also Glendon, supra note 42 at 43.

85. Price, B. & Sokoloff, N., The Criminal Justice System and Women (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995) at 3Google Scholar.

86. “Overview”, supra note 33; Naffine, N., Law and the Sexes Exploration in Feminist Jurisprudence (North Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990)Google Scholar.

87. “From Gender Specificity to Gender Neutrality”, supra note 41; Haas, L., Equal Parenthood and Social Policy (New York: State University, 1992) at 3Google Scholar; Irving, H. & Benjamin, M., “Shared Parenting In Canada: Questions, Answers, and Implications” (1986) 1:1Family Law Quarterly 79Google Scholar; Lamb, M. & Sagi, A., eds., Fatherhood and Family Policy, (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983) at 3–4, 9Google Scholar; Lemmon, J., Family Mediation Practice (New York: Macmillan, 1985) at 114–20Google Scholar; Roman, M. & Dichter, S., “Fathers and Feminism: Backlash Within the Women's Movement” (1985) 23:2Conciliation Courts ReviewGoogle Scholar; R. Thompson, “The Father's Case in Child Custody Disputes: The Contradictions of Psychological Research” in Lamb and Sagi, eds., ibid. 53.

88. Collier, supra note 43 at 177–78, 180; Lamb & Sagi, ibid.; C. Smart, “Power and the Politics of Child Custody” in Smart, supra note 71 1.

89. Boyd, supra note 71 at 138; Smart, ibid. at 10.

90. These provisions have affected mothers in theory, if not in practice. There is some debate about whether or not these statutory amendments have had an appreciable effect on the extent to which women are awarded or denied custody of children. See, for example, Pulkingham, J., “Private Troubles, Private Solutions: Poverty Among Divorced Women and the Politics of Support Enforcement and Child Custody Determinations” (1994) 9:2Canadian Journal of Law and Society 73 at 90–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Generally, it appears that, while new social and professional assumptions about gender and the family were embedded in law, social and legal practices of the majority of families did not change. Despite the fact that the statutory provisions and judicial discourse became gender-neutral, children have continued to reside primarily with mothers after family separation and divorce. Department of Justice, supra note 73; Glendon, supra note 42; Warshak, R., The Custody Revolution (New York: Poseidon, 1992)Google Scholar; Pulkingham, ibid. The practical outcome of custody and access disputes is not the only issue however. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of family law cases are settled in negotiation processes. When thinking about women's power, then, the best indicator of women's power may be less the extent to which women are awarded custody than the extent to which women's bargaining power in family matters generally has or is being eroded as a result of the erosion of the legal assumption that women will prima facie acquire custody of children. It is possible that women have lost negotiating power while retaining, in practice, social responsibility for children.

91. For example Ahrons, C., “The Continuing Coparental Relationship Between Divorced Spouses” (1981) 51:3American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 415CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Bruch, C. S., “Parenting At and After Divorce: A Search for New Models” (1981) 79:1–4Mich. L. Rev. 708CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grief, J. B., “Fathers, Children and Joint Custody” (1979) 49:2American Journal of Orthophsychiatry 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hess, R. D. & Camara, K., “Post-Divorce Family Relationships as Mediating Factors on the Consequences of Divorce for Children” (1979) 35:4Journal of Social Issues 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hetherington, A., Cox, E. & Cox, R., “Divorced fathers” (1976) 25 Family Coordinator 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Isaacs, M. B., “The Visitation Schedule and Child Adjustment: A Three-Year Study” (1988) 27 Family Process 251CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also one of the most influential books of the time, Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J., Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce (London: Grant McIntyre, 1980)Google Scholar.

92. See ibid. See also Barnes, G., Working With Families (London: MacMillan Education, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burnham, J. & Queenie, H., “Systemic Family Therapy: The Milan Approach” in Street, E. & Dryden, W., eds., Marital Therapy in Britain (Milton Keynes: Open University, 1988) 8Google Scholar; Campbell, D. et al. , Working With The Milan Method: Twenty Questions (London: Institute of Family Therapy, 1983)Google Scholar; Gadlin, H. & Oulette, P., “Mediation Milanese: An Application of Systemic Therapy to Family Mediation” (1986–1987) 14–15 Mediation Quarterly 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manor, O., Social Work in Action: A Handbook for Social Workers (London: Tavistock, 1984)Google Scholar; Minuchin, S., Families and Family Therapy (London: Tavistock, 1974)Google Scholar; Satir, V., Helping Families to Change (New York: Aaronson, 1975)Google Scholar; A. Vetere, “Family Therapy Research” in Street & Dryden, eds., ibid.

93. See, for example, Abarbanel, A., “Shared Parenting After Separation and Divorce: A Study of Joint Custody” (1979) 4:2American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowman, M. E. & Ahrons, C. R., “Impact of Legal Custody on Father's Parenting Post Divorce” (1985) 47 Journal of Marriage and the Family 481CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ilfeld, F., Ilfeld, H. & Alexander, J. Jr., “Does Joint Custody Work? A First Look at Outcome Data of Relitigation” (1982) 139:1American Journal of Psychiatry 62Google Scholar; Jackson, M. B., Hovespian, V. & Ferrick, G., “Common Problems in The Mediation of Child Custody Disputes” (1984) 22:2Conciliation Courts Review 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, J., ”Examining Resistance to Joint Custody” in Folberg, J., ed., Joint Custody and Shared Parenting (New York: Guilford, 1991)Google Scholar; Luepnitz, D., Child Custody: A Study of Families After Divorce (Lexington: Lexington, 1982)Google Scholar; E. Maccoby, C. Depner & R. Mnookin, supra note 12; Shiller, V., “Loyalty Conflicts and Family Relationships in Latency Age Boys: A Comparison of Joint and Maternal Custody” (1986) 9:4Journal of Divorce 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the joint custody studies listed in note 93.

94. “From Gender Specificity to Gender Neutrality?”, supra note 41.

95. M. J. Mossman, “Family Law and Social Welfare in Canada” in J. Banfield, ed., Readings in Law and Society, supra note 21, 364 at 365.

96. Boyd, S., “Potentialities and Perils of the Primary Caregiver Presumption” (1990–1991) 1:30Canadian Family Law Quarterly 1 at 3–4Google Scholar.

97. An examination of Canada's divorce rates for the period 1921 to 1979 discloses a divorce rate that increased from 6.4 (per 100,000 population) to a rate of 243.4 by 1978. See Statistics Canada, Divorce: Law and the Family in Canada (Ottawa: Supply & Services, 1983)Google Scholar. See also Glendon, supra note 42.

98. Duster, T., The Legislation of Morality (New York: Free Press, 1962) at 245Google Scholar.

99. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, this perspective permeated the mediation and mental health literature. See Ahier, B., Conciliation, Divorce and the Probation Services (Norwich: Social Work Monographs, 1986) at 19Google Scholar; Barnes, G., Working With Families (London: MacMillan Education, 1984) at 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, N. & Samis, M., “The Application of Structural Family Therapy in Developing the Binuclear Family” (1986) 14–15 Mediation Quarterly 67Google Scholar; Folberg, J., “Mediation of Child Custody Disputes” (1985) 19 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 415Google Scholar; Goldberg, I. & Goldberg, H., Family Therapy (Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1985) at 42Google Scholar; Haynes, J., “A Conceptual Model of the Process of Family Mediation: Implications for Training” (1984) 2 Family Studies Yearbook 507Google Scholar; Irving, H. & Benjamin, M., Family Mediation: Theory and Practice of Dispute Resolution (Toronto: Carswell 1987) at 60Google Scholar; Kaplan, S., “The Development and Operation of the Northwest Mediation Service” (1984) 6 Mediation Quarterly 75Google Scholar; Koopman, E., ”Family Mediation: A Development Perspective on the Field” in Sandole, D. & Sandole-Staroste, I., eds., Conflict Management and Problem Solving: Interpersonal to International Applications (London: Frances Pinter, 1987) 119 at 121Google Scholar; Maida, P., ”Components of Bowen's Family Theory and Divorce Mediation” (1986) Mediation Quarterly 57Google Scholar; Robinson, M. & Parkinson, L., “A Family System's Approach to Conciliation in Separation and Divorce” (1985) 7 Journal of Family Therapy 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steir, S. & Hamilton, N., “Teaching Divorce Mediation: Creating a Better Fit Between Family Systems and the Legal System” (1984) 48 Albany L. Rev. 741Google Scholar; White, S. & Mika, K., “Family Divorce and Separation: Theory and Research” (1983) Marriage and Family Review 187Google Scholar.

100. Ibid.

101. L'Heureux-Dubé J. in Young v. Young, supra note 66.

102. Glendon, supra note 42; Statistics Canada, supra note 97 at 251–58.

103. Rhode, S., “Feminist Perspectives on Legal Ideology” in Mitchel, J. & Oakley, A., eds., What Is Feminism (New York: Pantheon, 1986)Google Scholar; Littleton, C., “Equality and Feminist Legal Theory” (1987) 48 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1043Google Scholar; “Overview,” supra note 33.

104. Department of Justice, supra note 14 at 10–12.

105. E. Mensch, “The History of Mainstream Legal Thought” in D. Kairys, ed., supra note 30 at 13; “Overview”, supra note 33; Naffine, supra note 86.

106. See, for example, Nett, E., “Family Study in Canada During Sociology's Shifts from RC to PC to DC” (1996) 33:1Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 24Google Scholar; Richardson, supra note 43.

107. See, for example, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice (1996) 6:3CIAJ NewsletterGoogle Scholar.

108. Richardson, supra note 43 at 37.

109. See, for example, Buchanan, C., Maccoby, E. & Dornbusch, S., “Caught Between Parents: Adolescents' Experience in Divorced Homes” (1991) 26 Child Development 1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cahn, supra note 10; Carlson, B. E., “Adolescent Observers of Marital Violence” (1990) 5:4Journal of Violence 285CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, L. & Carlson, B., ”Observation of Spouse Abuse: What Happens to the Children?” (1987) 2:3Journal of Interpersonal Violence 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Emery, R., “Interparental Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce” (1982) 92:2Psychological Bulletin 310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Fantuzzo, J. & Lindquist, C., “The Effects of Observing Conjugal Violence on Children: A Review and Analysis of Research Methodology” (1989) 4:1Journal of Family Violence 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forstrom-Cohen, B. & Rosenbaum, A., “The Effects of Parental Marital Violence on Young Adults: An Exploratory Investigation” (1985) 47 Journal of Marriage and the Family 467CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaffe, P. et al. , “Similarities in Behavioral and Social Maladjustment Among Child Victims and Witnesses to Family Violence” (1985) 56 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, Gonzalez & Campbell, supra note 11; Johnston, Kline & Tschann, supra note 10; Shaw, D. & Emery, R., ”Parental Conflict and Other Correlates of the Adjustment of School-Age Children Whose Parents Have Separated” (1987) 15:2Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Shepard, M., “Child Visiting and Domestic Abuse” (1992) 71 Child Welfare 357Google Scholar.

110. Compare for example, the views of Johnston, Kline & Tschann, supra note 10; M. Pagelow, supra note 10 at 347–63 with those expressed in Maccoby, E. et al. Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody (Stanford: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Straus, R. & Alda, E., “Supervised Child Access: The Evolution of a Social Science” (1992) 32:2Family and Conciliation Courts Review at 235Google Scholar.

111. For an informative discussion of the debate, see Dobash, R. P. et al. , “The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence” (1992) 39 Social Problems 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112. Straus & Gelles, supra note 6; Straus, M. & Gelles, R., eds., Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8, 145 Families (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1990)Google Scholar.

113. For example, Dobash et al., supra note 111.

114. See supra note 6.

115. Ibid.

116. Supra note 6.

117. Sopp-Gilson, S., “Children From Violent Homes” (1980) 23:10Journal, Ontario's Association of Children's Aid Societies 1Google Scholar; “Women and Children at Risk,” supra note 13; Saunders, supra note 13.

118. Saunders, ibid. at 152, reports that slightly more than one third of battered women report battering their children. See also “Women and Children at Risk,” ibid.

119. Department of Justice, supra note 14.

120. Davis, Cretney & Collins, supra note 74; Ingleby, supra note 74.

121. ibid. See also Clark, L., “Wife Battery and Determinations of Custody and Access: A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings” (1990) 22:3Ottawa L. Rev. 694Google Scholar.

122. Supra notes 74 and 77.

123. Ibid. There is a need for still more research on the relationships between formal law and the legal practices of parties, lawyers, and mediators.

124. From and including vol. 30 of the second series, to and including (1996) 17 F.L.R. (4th) series.

125. Clark, supra 121, found only 14 cases between 1980 and 1990 indexed to spousal violence or abuse and a custody and access dispute in the Canadian Reports on Family Law series. We did not rely on indexing or headnotes but scanned the family law cases in their entirety. Consequently, we uncovered 113 cases that discussed both partner abuse and child issues during the same period.

126. Lynch v. Lynch (1995), 12 R.F.L. (4th) 367 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).

127. Aviles v. Aviles (1988), 17 R.F.L. (3d) 393 (Sask. Q.B.) at 394.

128. Ellis, supra note 6.

129. Depner, C. E., Cannata, K. & Simon, M. B., “Building a Uniform Statistical Reporting System: A Snapshot Study of California Family Court Services” (1992) 30 Family and Conciliation Court Review 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newmark, L., Harrell, A. & Salem, P., Domestic Violence and Empowerment in Custody and Visitation Cases: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Domestic Abuse (Maddison, Wis.: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 1994)Google Scholar.

130. In fact, Judith Begley, then a second-year University of New Brunswick law-school student, worked ably and meticulously to collect the major portion of the case-law data discussed in this section.

131. Several years ago, New Brunswick revamped its civil legal aid service. One of the changes was to hire a number of lawyers on a contract basis to provide legal services free of charge to victims of domestic abuse. Those lawyers are commonly referred to as family court solicitors.

132. See also Clark, supra note 121 at 694; Davis, Cretney & Collins, supra note 74.

133. See also Clark, ibid. at 694. In New Brunswick, in affiliation with the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research at the University of New Brunswick, we have formed a multidisciplinary research team composed of sociologists, lawyers, psychologists, and social workers to explore these pretrial negotiation processes and also the implications for family members of legal decisions made in these circumstances.

134. See supra note 74.

135. Brigante v. Brigante (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d) 299 (Ont. Unif. Fam. Ct.) at 302.

136. Richardson v. Gardner, supra note 66.

137. McColl v. McColl (1995), 13 R.F.L. (4th) 449 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).

138. Savidant v. MacLeod (1992), 40 R.F.L. (3d) 443 (P.E.I. S.C.A.D.) at 445.

139. Savidant v. MacLeod (1991), 32 R.F.L. (3d) 266 (P.E.I. S.C.T.D.) at 266–67.

140. Murphy, J., “Lawyering for Social Change: The Power of the Narrative in Domestic Violence Law Reform” (1993) 21:4Hofstra L. Rev. 1243Google Scholar.

141. Cerget v. Cerget (1995), 7 R.F.L.. (4th) 322 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.))at 326.

142. T. (R.A.) v. T. (I. R. D. J.) (1990), 28 R.F.L. (3d) 79 (N.S. Fam. Ct.) at 83.

143. Bendle v. Bendle (1985), 48 R.F.L. (2d) 120 (Ont Prov. Ct. (Fam. Div.)) at 123.

144. In addition to the cases quoted below, see ibid.; Despatie v. Larouche (1984), 36 R.F.L. (2d) 30 (Que. Sup. C); Dupont v. Dupont (1993), 47 R.F.L. (3d) 273; Richardson v. Gardner, supra note 66 at 306.

145. Cain v. Cain (1983), 33 R.F.L. (2d) 353 (Sask. Q.B.) at 358.

146. See also Langer, R., “Male Domestic Abuse: The Continuing Contrast Between Women's Experiences and Judicial Responses” (1995) 10:1C.J.L.S. 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

147. In addition to W. (K.M.) v. W. (D.D.) (1993), 47 R.F.L. (3d) 378 (Ont. Ct. (Prov. Div.)), see also Bendle v. Bendle, supra note 143; Sort v. Poppelwell (1988), 13 R.F.L. (3d) 192 (Sask. Q.B.); Cain v. Cain, supra note 145; Duller v. Duller (1989), 18 R.F.L. (3d) (Ont. H.C.J.) (3d) 53; Dupont v. Dupont, supra note 144; Ellen v. Ellen (1982), 30 R.F.L. (2d) 257 (Sask. Q.B.); Metz v. Metz (1991), 35 R.F.L. (3d) 437 (Sask. Q.B.); Nouveau-Brunswick v.F(C) (1995), 14 R.F.L. (4th) 392 (N.B. C.A.); Richardson v. Gardner, supra note 66; Abdo v. Abdo (1993), 50 R.F.L. (3d) 171 (N.S. S.C. A.D.). These cases were heard at the Supreme Court, not at the Court of Appeal level. When a court of appeal overrules a lower court after it has treated a mother (or anyone for that matter) unfairly, it revises the law to the advantage of those who apply to the court in the future but this does little to remedy the harm already done.

148. W. (K.M) v. W. (D.D.) ibid. at 386.

149. Sort v. Poppelwell, supra note 147.

150. Brigante v. Brigante, supra note 135; Filipe v. Filipe (1995) 14 R.F.L. (4th) 378 (B.C. S.C.). The judge discounted the mother's evidence of abuse in the Brigante case. But see also Jarrett v. Jarrett (1995), 10 R.F.L. (4th) 24 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)); MacGuyver v. Richards (1995), 11 F.L.R. (4th) 432 (Ont. C.A.).

151. Filipe v. Filipe, ibid. at 381.

152. Ibid. at 381.

153. See for example Timmins, L., ed., Listening to the Thunder (Vancouver: Women's Research Centre, 1995)Google Scholar.

154. Rahe, R. H., McKean, J. D. & Arthur, R. J., “A Longitudinal Study of Life Changes and Illness Patterns” (1967) 10 Journal of Psychosomatic Research 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155. Cases denying abusers access to their children did not differ markedly from cases awarding access.

156. See also Barrett v. Barrett (1989), 18 R.F.L. (3d) 186 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.); Brigante v. Brigante, supra note 135; Burk v. Burk (1991), 34 R.F.L. (3d) 27 (Ont. Unif. Fam. Ct.); Ellert v. Ellen, supra note 147; Fanning v. Fanning (1990), 24 R.F.L. (3d) 135 (N.S. S.C.T.D.); Foggo v. Foggo (1984), 40 R.F.L. (2d) 129 (Ont. H.C.J.); Fullarton v. Fullarton (1994), 7 R.F.L. (4th) 272 (N.B. Q.B. (Fam. Div.)); Howe v. Howe (1988), 16 R.F.L. (3d) 387 (N.B. Q.B. (Fam. Div.)); Reid v. Reid (1985), 45 R.F.L. (2d) 173 (B.C. S.C.); Whiffen v. Buckoltz (1987), 7 R.F.L. (3d) 77 9 (B.C. S.C.). Some of the cases were resolved by judicial order after a contested hearing; others were judicial endorsements of agreements reached. I have not distinguished between them because it is my belief that the legal system bears some responsibility for the consequences in both case.

157. Barrett v. Barrett, ibid. at 197.

158. Fanning v. Fanning, supra note 156 at 138.

159. Young v. Young (1989), 19 R.F.L. (3d) 227 (Ont. H.C.J.). The father was granted liberal access.

160. Cairns v. Cairns (1994), 3 R.F.L. (4th) 397 (N.B. Q.B. (Fam. Div.)); Savidant v. MacLeod, supra note 139; Whiffen v. Buckoltz, supra note 156; C. (R.M.) v. C (J. R. ) (1995), 12 R.F.L. (4th) 440 (B.C. S.C.); Deane v. Deane (1995), 14 R.F.L. (4th) 55 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)).

161. C. (R. M.) v. C. (J. R.), ibid.

162. Cases in which the award of custody or access was unclear were excluded, resulting in 42 pre-Divorce Act, 1985 and 93 post-Divorce Act, 1985 cases discussed here.

163. Metz v. Metz, supra note 147.

164. Abdo v. Abdo, supra note 147 at 188. See also Dolgopol v. Dolgopol (1995), 10 R.F.L. (4th) 368 (Sask. Q.B.).

165. Supra note 156; Scono v. Scono (1984), 41 R.F.L. (2d) 57 (Ont. H.C.J.); T.W.D. v. Y.M.D. (1989), 20 R.F.L. (3d) 183 (N.S. S.C.T.D.). The fact that this consideration does not appear in the discourse does not mean, necessarily, that it was not considered. It is more likely than not that if one were to interview judges, privately, after deciding family law cases, it would be found that there are many matters judges take into account when deciding cases that are never articulated in a formal manner.

166. For example, section 16(9) of the Divorce Act, 1985 states that, in making a custody and access order a court “shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child.”

167. I doubt that anyone who works in the legal system escapes the dominance of legal rules entirely. Upon reflection, I think that it is likely that I accepted legal rules in a similar manner when I practised law in the 1980s.

168. See also Beck v. Balsillie (1994), 2 R.F.L. (4th) 91 (N.W.T. S.C.). D. (D.L) v. W. (R.J.) (1995), 10 R.F.L. (4th) 130 (Sask. Q.B.).

169. Sherry v. Sherry (1994), 1 R.F.L. (4th) 146 at 155 9P.E.I. S.C.T.D.).

170. See also.Boyd, S., “(Re)Placing the State: Family, Law and Oppression” (1994) 9:1C.J.L.S. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Judges are expressing concern that requirements to consider conduct would simply encourage litigation. See, for example, F. (T.R.) v. S. (P.K.) (1994), 1 R.F.L. (4th) 134 (Alta Q.B.) at 140.

171. See also Langer, supra note 146.

172. Cretney, S., Principles of Family Law, 4th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1984) 331–32Google Scholar; “From Gender Specificity to Gender Neutrality,” supra note 41; Glendon, supra note 42; Statistics Canada, supra note 97 at 251–58; Shanley, supra note 47 at 39–40; Young v. Young, supra note 166.

173. A statutory bias in favour of women has the potential to create other sorts of injustices in individual cases. See for example Scullion v. Scullion (1995), 12 R.F.L. (4th) 421 (N.B. Q.B. (Fam. Div.)).

174. For example Galanter, supra note 37; Brooke, supra note 19.

175. Galanter, ibid at 268.

176. Despite the new provisions of the Divorce Act, 1986 endorsing maximum contact and directing judges not to consider parental conduct in awarding custody and access, the reported cases indicate that this did not result in children being left with abusers more often. See also Clark, supra note 121; also Pulkingham, supra note 90 at 90–91. Prior to the implementation of the Divorce Act, 1986, in 23.8% of the cases examined, joint or sole custody of children was awarded to, or left with, an abusive parent (usually the father). After the implementation of the Divorce Act, that figure dropped to 16.1%. Similarly, awards of access to abusers in the reported cases decreased slightly and denials of access to abusers increased slightly (59.5% of the cases awarded abusers access to their children prior to the Divorce Act, 55.9% after; 16.7% of the cases denied abusers access to their children prior to the Divorce Act, 28% after. While it is not possible to claim that these figures are significant, since there is no way of knowing how representative they are, they do suggest that the statutory changes did not markedly affect judicial practice. Others have noted a similar phenomenon with respect to changes to child custody law, generally. See Clark and Pulkingham, ibid.

177. For references to the psychological literature on this point, see supra note 11.

178. Divorce Act, 1985, supra note 80, s. 16(10).

179. Young v. Young, supra note 159 at 235.

180. It should not be assumed, when reading my arguments here, that I am suggesting that professional “knowledge” is more just than law. Quite the contrary, since my argument has been that both law and professional knowledge evolve from social change produced by the power dynamics of the social order. If this is correct, dominant professional knowledge will only be as “just” or “correct” as the social order is just or correct. My intention is not to make moral assertions, but simply to explore the connections between the social order, professional knowledge and law in the context of women abuse cases when there are dependent children to consider whether the statutory changes being suggested are likely to benefit women. I do not know whether or not the current professional “knowledge” about the effects of partner abuse on children is “just” or “correct” since my understandings of “correct” and “just” are just as much coloured by time, place and society as anyone else's.

181. Tremble v. Hill (1987), 7 R.F.L. (3d) 85 (Ont. Unif. Fam.Ct.) at 88.

182. Alexander v. Creary (1995), 14 R.F.L. (4th) 311 (Ont. Ct. (Prov. Div.)).

183. Cairns v. Cairns, supra note 160 at 401. Here also we find the court referring to professional “expertise” in order to justify the decision.

184. Abdo v. Abdo, supra note 147 at 188.

185. (1995) 15 R.F.L. (4th) 90 (B.C. S.C.) at 92.

186. Ibid. at 93.

187. Supra note 16.

188. See also Maccoby, Depner & Mnookin, supra note 121.

189. Boyd, supra note 170; Snider, L., “Feminism, Punishment, and the Potential For Empowerment” (1994) 9:1C.J.L.S. 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Valverde, M. et al. ed., Wife Assault and the Canadian Criminal Justice System (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1995)Google Scholar.

190. This only will work to the advantage of women when professional knowledge favours the interests of women.

191. J. Bakan, “Constitutional Interpretation and Social Change: You Can't Always Get What You Want (Nor What You Need)” in Banfield, ed., supra note 21 177; D. Majury, “Equality and Discrimination According to the Supreme Court” in Banfield, ed., supra note 21, 184. See also supra note 22.

192. Galanter, supra note 37.

193. Snider, supra note 189

194. Rosen, P., The Supreme Court and Social Science (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972)Google Scholar; B. Wilson, “Judicial Decision-Making and the Charter” in Banfield, ed., supra note 21, 204.

195. Baar, C., “Criminal Court Delay and the Charter: The Use and the Misuse of Social Facts in Judicial Policy Making” (1993) 72:3Can. Bar Rev. 305Google Scholar.