Shared Custody: The Child Has Become a Commercial Asset

The Child Is No Longer at the Centre. The Child Is in the Middle.

The law is clear. Article 33 of the Civil Code of Québec states that every decision concerning a child must be made in the child's interest. The court can order expert assessments, appoint a lawyer for the child, and hear all parties. On paper, the system has solid tools.

But between the law and what families experience, there is a gap that the testimonies received by Justice-Quebec.ca document with troubling consistency.

That gap is not measured in legal provisions. It is measured in legal bills. In the number of motions filed. In the ability of one firm to produce a procedural volume that the other parent simply cannot absorb. And at the end of this battle — which can last two, three, five years — it is not the best parent who obtains custody. It is the one who had the means to hold on.

The child never had a say.

When Childhood Becomes Revenue

No one says it openly. But the testimonies describe it with a precision that leaves no room for doubt: in some custody cases, the child is no longer a human being to be protected. The child has become the economic engine of a legal dispute.

A custody case lasting two years can generate tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees — motions, counter-motions, expert assessments, examinations, adjournments. One testimony received by Justice-Quebec.ca describes $50,000 in legal fees over two years. Another describes three successive law firms, systematic postponements, and a father who ultimately signed over custody — not because he was wrong, but because he had nothing left to give.

"I understood that the battle was no longer about the facts, but about the image." — Testimony received by Justice-Quebec.ca

The child did not choose this courthouse. The child did not choose these lawyers. The child did not ask for their childhood to become the battleground of a legal conflict driven by financial interests. But that is exactly what happens when the system allows one parent to be crushed by the other's procedural volume — not because they are a bad parent, but because their pockets are not deep enough.

The Report That Says Everything — and That No One Listens To

The psychosocial assessment is supposed to be the most objective tool in the system. A court-appointed professional evaluates both parents, observes the children, and produces a detailed report.

Yet the official Québec government portal, JuridiQC, states in black and white: "The judge is not required to render a decision consistent with the psychosocial assessment." That single sentence sums up the problem.

A report submitted to Justice-Quebec.ca — an official document from a Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux — illustrates this reality. All names have been removed. The conclusions speak for themselves:

"[The father] is a father who loves his children, patient, adjusts to them, shows understanding toward them [...] It has already been established that he has actively participated in his role as a father since the separation by respecting his access rights." — Psychosocial assessment report, CISSS, 2023 — anonymized

The same report raises contradictions in the other parent's account:

"Despite a court order, [the mother] does not respect the agreements. Certain behaviours facilitate or limit the relationship with the other parent and the children." — Psychosocial assessment report, CISSS, 2023 — anonymized

And on the children's best interest:

"Factors likely to promote the best interest of the child include, among others, the possibility for the child to have regular and meaningful access to both parents." — Psychosocial assessment report, CISSS, 2023 — anonymized

This father no longer has the right to see his children. The report exists. It is in the file. But the firm on the other side had more resources, more procedures, more time. And the child? The child lost a parent — not because that parent was incompetent, but because they could not compete with a legal machine.

Parental Alienation: The Silent Weapon

Parental alienation is not defined by Québec law. But it is recognized by the courts and described in testimonies with a pain that leaves no doubt.

Parents describe years of systematic denigration. Children used as messengers. Repeated moves that force the other parent to start over with each new worker. In one testimony, the DPJ itself described the behaviour as "an extremely strong prescription on the part of the mother." And did nothing.

Parental alienation is violence against the child. Not the parent. The child. It is the child who is deprived of a bond. It is the child who is conditioned to reject a part of themselves. And when the system allows this violence to continue because one law firm has the means to drown the other parent in procedures, it is no longer a family conflict — it is an industry profiting from a child's suffering.

Neurodivergence: Being Different Means Being Suspect

A particularly concerning pattern runs through several testimonies: a medical diagnosis — autism, ADHD, Tourette syndrome — turned into a presumption of parental incompetence. A parent's communication style interpreted as instability. Their intensity read as a threat. Their difference used as an argument against them, despite assessments that attest to their competence.

"I am autistic with high intellectual potential. I was told that my posture demonstrated hostility and a risk of danger. I was relaxed, sitting straight, my water bottle in one hand, a pen in the other." — Testimony, Québec courthouse

When a neurodivergent parent loses custody not because they are a bad parent, but because their tics, their intensity or their communication style were interpreted as danger signals — it is the child who loses. Not the system. The child.

The DPJ: When Protecting Children Is Optional

The Direction de la protection de la jeunesse has a mandate written into law: to protect children whose safety or development is compromised.

What the testimonies describe paints two contradictory realities. On one side, a DPJ that intervenes overwhelmingly on fragile grounds — a nurse and homeowner whose baby is removed at the maternity ward for an undiagnosed tongue tie. On the other, a DPJ that receives reports documenting that children are suffering harm, that court orders are not being respected, that a child's development is compromised — and does nothing.

When an official report signed by a government agency says that a child needs both parents, that one of them is not respecting court orders, and nothing changes — the question is no longer whether the parent is competent. The question is whether the child is protected.

What the Child Would Say If They Had a Voice

No child has ever asked for their childhood to be decided by the most influential law firm. No child has asked to be separated from a loving parent because that parent could not afford to fight. No child has chosen to be the battleground of a conflict that generates tens of thousands of dollars for professionals who will never know them.

The system says it acts in the child's best interest. But when custody is determined by the depth of one's pockets rather than by parental competence, when a favourable psychosocial report means nothing against a well-resourced firm, when parental alienation is documented but never sanctioned — in whose best interest is the system acting, exactly?

Reforms: One Step Forward, a Thousand Steps Behind

Québec's family law has evolved. The Unified Family Court has been in place since June 2025. Judicial violence is codified under article 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mediation has been strengthened.

But within the legal community, scepticism runs deep. Me Anne-France Goldwater, a family law specialist with over forty years of experience, filed a constitutional challenge against this very court in June 2025. Her argument: the reform creates a two-tier system that weakens access to the Superior Court. On judicial violence, she is direct: the mechanisms already existed in Québec civil law. The new provision creates no real additional protection.

No reform guarantees that a favourable psychosocial report will be taken into account. None rebalances the forces between an unrepresented parent and a well-resourced firm. None provides a binding mechanism when the DPJ is informed of documented harm and fails to act.

The law says the judge must consider the balance of power. It does not guarantee that balance. And as long as it does not, it is the child who pays the price.

These Are Not Bad Parents. It Is a System That Sacrifices Their Children.

Judges and caseworkers often deal with extremely complex cases, with family realities that cannot be reduced to a single point of view. But for the parents who live through these situations, the sense of injustice runs deep.

The families whose testimonies informed this article are not seeking to accuse. They are seeking to be heard. What they describe is not an exception — it is a dynamic documented across multiple cases, in multiple regions, with different profiles.

The question is not who deserves custody. The question is whether Québec can guarantee that the answer does not depend on which firm represents you, how deep your pockets are, or your ability to endure five years of proceedings.

Based on what we have received, read and verified: not always.

Have you experienced a similar situation? The Testimonies section of Justice-Quebec.ca is open. Your account will remain confidential. It may help other families not face this system alone.

Sources: Civil Code of Québec (art. 33) — Code of Civil Procedure (art. 54) — JuridiQC, Québec government portal — Le Devoir, November 2024 — Barreau du Québec — Anonymized testimonies received by Justice-Quebec.ca — Psychosocial assessment report, CISSS, 2023.

This site does not provide legal advice. This article is based on anonymized testimonies submitted voluntarily and on a psychosocial assessment report from which all identifying information has been removed. No names of parties, children or professionals are disclosed. These testimonies document a recurring phenomenon — they do not constitute a statistically representative sample of the entire Québec judicial system. All persons mentioned benefit from the presumption of innocence.