AN ACT TO AMEND THE CHILDREN'S LAW ACT AND THE FAMILY LAW ACT

Summary#

This bill updates Newfoundland and Labrador’s family laws about parenting after separation. It replaces “custody” and “access” with “decision-making responsibility,” “parenting time,” and “contact.” It makes the child’s best interests the only test for parenting decisions and adds clear rules about family violence and relocation. It also creates duties for parents, lawyers, and courts, and updates the Family Law Act to use the same terms.

Key changes:

• Replaces “custody” and “access” with decision-making responsibility (who makes major decisions), parenting time (time a child is in a parent’s care), and contact (time for non‑parents).
• Requires courts to consider only the best interests of the child, with an expanded list of factors, including the impact of family violence and the child’s culture and Indigenous heritage.
• Defines family violence (including physical, sexual, psychological, and financial abuse, stalking, and exposing a child to such conduct) and explains how courts must weigh it.
• Creates detailed rules for relocation and for changes of residence, including written notice, timelines, and who must prove a move is or is not in the child’s best interests.
• Sets out what parenting orders and contact orders can include (schedules, decision-making split by topic, supervised time, travel limits, authorization or prohibition of relocation).
• Encourages out‑of‑court resolution (mediation, negotiation, collaborative law) and requires parties and lawyers to certify they understand related duties.
• Strengthens fast enforcement when parenting time or contact is wrongfully denied (10‑day hearing target, compensatory time, expense reimbursement, affidavit evidence).
• Recognizes and enforces out‑of‑province parenting orders in most cases, with limited exceptions.
• Allows applications even if a child is under a continuous custody order under the child protection law.
• Converts existing “custody” and “access” orders/agreements to the new terms on the transition date.

What it means for you#

• Parents and people acting as parents

  • Terms change: your order or agreement will refer to decision‑making responsibility, parenting time, and contact.
  • Unless a court orders otherwise, each parent makes day‑to‑day decisions during their parenting time and can request information about the child’s health, education, and well‑being.
  • Courts must focus only on the child’s best interests. They will look at safety, the child’s needs and stability, history of care, each parent’s ability to meet needs, cooperation, the child’s views (by age/maturity), culture and heritage (including Indigenous), and any family violence.
  • If you plan to relocate and it could significantly affect the child’s relationships, you must generally give at least 60 days’ written notice with details and a proposal for new arrangements. Others with parenting time/contact can object within 30 days. A court can waive or change notice if appropriate, including for safety.
  • Courts can authorize or prohibit relocation. Who must prove what depends on how much time the child spends with each party now.
  • Parenting plans you agree on will be included in orders unless the court finds they are not in the child’s best interests.
  • Wrongful denial of parenting time/contact can lead to compensatory time, supervision, mediation, and repayment of reasonable expenses. Applications should be heard within 10 days and must be made within 30 days of the denial, usually by affidavit.
  • Restraining orders are available to stop harassment or unsafe contact.

• Grandparents and other non‑parents

  • You may apply for a contact order (time by visits or other communication).
  • If your change of address is likely to significantly affect your relationship with the child, you must generally give 60 days’ written notice with a proposal for future contact (a court can modify or waive this, including for safety).

• People experiencing family violence

  • The law defines family violence broadly and requires courts to consider its nature, seriousness, patterns of control, exposure of the child, harm, safety risks, and steps taken to change.
  • Courts can order supervised exchanges/parenting time, ban removal from certain areas, issue restraining orders, and adjust notice rules if there is risk.

• Lawyers and legal advisers

  • You must encourage appropriate family dispute resolution, inform clients about family justice services, and certify you have done so and informed them of duties.

• Courts

  • Must consider related criminal, child protection, and safety orders. Can decline jurisdiction if another place is more appropriate. May act to prevent serious harm even if jurisdiction is otherwise elsewhere. Must move quickly on enforcement applications.

• Police and social workers

  • Police can be directed to locate and deliver a child who is unlawfully withheld or at risk of being removed from the province. Social workers from the Department of Social Supports and Well‑Being may assist with enforcement and returns. No one can be required to supervise parenting time unless they agree.

• If you already have an order or agreement

  • On the transition date, “custody” becomes “decision‑making responsibility and parenting time,” and “access” becomes “parenting time” (for parents/parent‑like persons) or “contact” (for others), unless a court orders otherwise.
  • You can file separation agreements that set specific parenting times for enforcement similar to a court order.

• Support and other Family Law Act updates

  • Reinforces that all parents must support their children, and spouses/cohabiting partners may owe support to each other based on need and ability.
  • Uses “cohabiting partner” and gender‑neutral terms throughout.
  • Updates court names and procedures; confirms that domestic contracts remain subject to the child’s best interests.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• This could require one‑time updates to court forms, systems, and staff training and more support for family justice services.
• There may be added administrative work to handle relocation notices and faster enforcement hearings.
• No cost estimates are provided in the supplied material.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to put children first by making the best interests of the child the only test and by expanding the factors courts must consider.
• Moving from “custody/access” to “decision‑making responsibility/parenting time/contact” could reduce conflict by focusing on roles and time rather than winning or losing.
• Defining family violence and directing courts how to weigh it could improve child and caregiver safety and more consistent decisions.
• Clear relocation rules, including notice and who has the burden of proof, could make outcomes more predictable and reduce disputes.
• Encouraging mediation and other out‑of‑court processes may help families resolve issues faster and at lower conflict, where appropriate.
• Faster, clearer enforcement (10‑day hearings, compensatory time, expense repayment) could help maintain children’s relationships and deter wrongful denials.
• Recognizing and enforcing out‑of‑province orders, with safeguards, could reduce duplicate litigation and child abduction risks.
• Updating language (gender‑neutral terms) and references modernizes the law and aligns with federal Divorce Act concepts.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that changing long‑used terms could cause confusion for families and service providers during the transition, even with the conversion rules.
• The relocation notice and objection process may lead to more litigation in some cases; sharing new addresses could raise safety worries despite the court’s power to modify or waive notice for family violence.
• The 10‑day, affidavit‑only enforcement process may feel too limited for complex situations or for self‑represented parties who need oral evidence.
• New certifications and duties for parties and lawyers add steps that could increase paperwork and upfront legal time.
• Recognizing extra‑provincial orders by default may enforce arrangements made elsewhere that do not fit local circumstances, though the bill includes exceptions (e.g., lack of notice, best‑interests concerns).
• Allowing parenting/contact applications even when a child is under a continuous custody order under child protection law could create overlap or confusion between proceedings; coordination in practice is not detailed in the bill.