Skip Navigation

International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 2002 16(2):145-180; doi:10.1093/lawfam/16.2.145
© 2002 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bala, N.
Right arrow Articles by Bromwich, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Context and Inclusivity in Canada's Evolving Definition of the Family

Nicholas Bala1 and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich2

1 Faculty of Law, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario 2 Faculty of Law, Queen's University. Kingston, Canada K7L 3N6

Historically, the legal definition of the family was based on heterosexual marriage and links to biological children. Prompted by changing social values and the Charter of Rights, Canadian legislatures and courts have dramatically extended the range of relationships having familial rights and obligations. Canada recognizes the legal status of psychological parents, support rights for adult children and filial support obligations. At present, the greatest controversies concern the inclusion of non-traditional spousal relationships within the concept of the family, as unmarried cohabitants and same-sex partners in long-term relationships have gained many of the rights and obligations of marriage. The Law Commission of Canada recommends legal recognition of a broader range of non-conjugal ‘close personal adult relationships’. Arguments are also being made for legal recognition of polygamous marriage. While there are legal contexts for which an extension of familial rights to non-conjugal close personal relationships is appropriate, for purposes of ‘family law’, conjugality should remain a central concept. Adults living in relationships that do not involve the expectations and interdependencies of conjugal (or ‘spousal’) relationships should not have obligations that continue after they have ceased to reside together. Relationships where the adults actually have responsibility for the care of children should generally be protected, but there are strong arguments for not giving legal sanction to polygamous relationships.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Law Policy FamilyHome page
I. Dey and F. Wasoff
Mixed Messages: Parental Responsibilities, Public Opinion and the Reforms of Family Law
Int J Law Policy Family, August 1, 2006; 20(2): 225 - 248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.