1. Objectifs

Intentions :
The author explores «the proposed [family law] reform and its assumptions of formal equality and individualistic autonomy. [She] then develop[s] what [she] suggest[s] should be the test of good family law: how well it deals with the situation of women who have little economic power or who are in violent relationships. […] Finally, [she] expose[s] three fatal flaws in how the reform proposal deals with autonomy, the public/private interaction, and inequality, before pointing to fairer alternatives.» (p. 428)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
The author’s analysis «is based on a reform proposal put together by the Comité consultatif sur le droit de la famille (the “Roy Committee”).» (p. 429)

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

The author suggests that «[e]xtending the entitlement to spousal support or equal sharing of family patrimony to all couples who have children or who can prove a relationship-generated disadvantage would be one avenue to correct underinclusiveness and to truly start recognizing the diversity of families. [However, family] law reforms are few and far between. Seemingly lacking political appeal, this area of law affects almost everyone, yet appears neglected in political campaigns, societal debates, and feminist activism. Quebec’s reform project is, then, an important event. Unfortunately, what is proposed to women is a mixed bag, with small improvements being accompanied by high costs. Domestic-violence victims are not protected from opting out of sharing family patrimony, and the economic consequences of violence are not considered in the compensatory mechanisms. Underprivileged couples are also penalized by the change in default matrimonial regime and the perpetuation of an opt-in logic for de facto spouses. If family law can be caricatured as “a Manichaean struggle between atomistic liberalism and a socially contextualized feminism,” the reform project indubitably falls into the former camp. Quebec families deserve the protection of family patrimony, partnership of acquests, and default regulation of de facto unions. Yet, the Roy Committee’s project chooses formal over substantial equality, idealism over reality, and men over women.» (p. 480-481)