In a poll conducted by leading Canadian pollsters, Nanos Research, the results revealed that 70% of Canadians support shared parenting. Thirteen per cent opposed shared parenting and 17% were undecided.
Nanos conducted an RDD dual frame (land- and cell-lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between August 30th and September 1st, 2017 as part of an omnibus survey. Participants were randomly recruited by telephone using live agents and administered a survey online. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,000 Canadians is ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
You may ask “how can a poll of 1,000 people reflect the views of 35 million Canadians?”
Writer Eric Grenier wrote a piece on polling in the Globe and Mail in 2014 and answered that question:
“It might be hard to believe, but it is mathematically possible. A smaller sample will, of course, have a harder time reflecting the population accurately. But a poll of 1,000 people is generally considered the standard size. Larger polls have smaller margins of error, but the return on that extra effort is smaller is well. Doubling the sample size does not cut the margin of error in half, for example.”
Canada’s largest private broadcaster depends on Nanos Research as the official pollster of record for CTV News. Similarly, world-renowned Bloomberg News Service uses Nanos to conduct Bloomberg’s weekly Canadian consumer sentiment tracking, known as the Bloomberg Nanos Canadian Confidence Index.
Now, if certain lawyers, judges, and politicians would read the scholarly literature and understand that shared parenting is best for children, Canadian families who have suffered from divorce, would be far happier and healthier.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
Great post. Since 2013, BC’s Family Law Act has a rebuatble presumption of joint guardianship. There have not been any significant issues arising from this common sense approach. In other words, it works (at least so far as guardianship is concerned – parenting time is another matter).
Kids need both a mom and a dad. The present legislation incentivises ‘fighting it out’ for child support and is often used as a tool to allow an angry (or insecure/unstable) ex-spouse to demonize his/her former partner. As our adversarial system operates on making the other parent ‘look bad’, the process becomes needlessly personal and makes thoughtful co-parenting a Herculenean obstacle. How can this be in a child’s best interest? In the end, it is all too common for the targeted parent to simply walk away in frustration…and the child loses the love and guidance of a mother or father, typically at a time that they need it most – as they struggle with their parent’s divorce.
I cant help but think that a ‘shared parenting starting point’ would not only be in the best interests of children, but also avoid needless court battles. Access to courts is all the more acute today as the recent ‘Jordan case’ will no doubt be putting criminal matters to the front of the docket…and scheduling custody matters in court will become even more odious. In other words, the already beleaguered court scheduling system will simply have no time to deal with loving parents that are being kept away from their children.
Defaulting to a rebutable presumption of 50/50 parenting-time is an idea that is long overdue.
Completely agree with you – our new poll uses the term “equal parenting” and not the term “shared parenting”
What Canadians need is a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting at the onset if divorce or separation, in the absence of abuse, neglect or abandonment. Period!
So a poll says what a majority of Canadians believe in principle, great. Certainly, each case much be considered on its individual facts on what constitutes the best interests of children. General platitudes don’t apply to individual children and their families. Queue to JP Boyd who provided a thoughtful piece on this very issue: http://bcfamilylawresource.blogspot.ca/2013/12/why-there-is-no-place-for-presumptions.html
Thank you for the link to an article, crafted by a profiteer of Family Law. Unfortunately, in his argument, Mr. Boyd does not regard empirical data on social science numbers in his country of practice; or around the world for that matter. High parental conflict has no actual bearing on parenting time; it was implemented as an excuse and remains as such. No judge nor court can reduce “conflict” by lessening one parents time with their child.
General platitudes are the foundation of democracy; they indeed apply to every individual. Under an Act, laws become distinguishable and cater to specifics, so by enacting a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, absent abuse or neglect, does not in itself, negate or disenfranchise individuals.
Imagine for a moment you are teaching a group of adults to safely and effectively navigate a school yard. For this lesson you have provided each with an identical map for guidance. Keep in mind, the goal of the lesson is to have the adults teach their children what they learn because the majority want what is best for their children and the same majority will provide this for them. Now suppose one adult says, “I see your map here, but what if there are puddles?” The response cannot be to take every map away from every adult in group.
A legal definition within the Divorce Act of the best interests of children becomes our map. Shared parenting is what the majority want therefore it becomes our destination. We, as Canadians, have the privilege to enjoy standards in health and well-being, education, religion etc and these could be used to develop features on our map.
So instead of claiming what is good for the group is not good for the individual, let’s print the map our children long have deserved, place it on the table and work collaboratively and progressively on imprinting the pathways to shared parenting for the majority.
Similar results from the American side where there is generally support among the public in favor of shared parenting
I want to add:
In a democratic society, laws are made for the majority; whether that majority is of politicians or majority of population. Mr. Boyd attempts, like many, to legalese his position away from what the majority of our population want. However, if our majority want it, then our children must have it. Democracy will prevail and attempting to stand in the way of what our majority want will never succeed .
During high parental conflict (disagreements over health and well being, education, religion, extra curricula etc) with intact families, a judge does not come into their life after the argument and order one parent to have less time with the child or children. It remains a mistake to have allowed itas component for sole custody applications.
If lawyers such as Mr. Boyd, and politicians such as those that voted down Bill C-560, actually cared about the best interests of children, they would take the time to define it in law, and in turn, implement it. It’s what the majority.
A distinct definition of what the best interests of children in Canada are would then be the framework for orders; not current status quo of individual judicial determination. The individuality of children must not continue to be used as an excuse to avoid what the majority of children should have and the continuance of doing so illustrates for everyone the ignorance and negligence of the stakeholders.