1. Objectifs

Intentions :
« With regard to the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, within the space of 15 years the Quebec legislator adopted provisions that at first glance appear contradictory. Firstly, under the family law reform of 1980, a provision recognising the special nature of the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren was introduced into the Civil Code. […] By contrast, the abolition of reciprocal maintenance obligations between grandparents and grandchildren by the National Assembly in 1996 endorses a weaker relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. The legislator limited family maintenance obligations to first-degree ascendants and descendants, thus ending an immemorial tradition. How should we interpret these amendments that at first glance appear inconsistent with each other? To fully understand their import, we need to look back at the key socio-cultural developments in Quebec and particularly the major turning point of the 1960s. We will see that, paradoxically, the seemingly contradictory provisions that interest us here were largely prompted by the same factors. » (p. 169-170)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Données documentaires diverses

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

« [I]t is still surprising that, on the basis of the same observations of changes to family and marital life, the legislator adopted, within the space of 15 years, provisions that, in one case, consolidate inter-generational relations and, in the other, acknowledge their breakdown. At the same time, these legislative changes first increased grandparents’ rights and secondly reduced their obligations. If we were to take a cynical view, we could say that grandparents win on all counts. But if we look at the situation from the point of view of children and their integration into the family and society, the abolition of grandparents’ maintenance obligation represents a loss for grandchildren and probably also for grandparents. It represents a material loss for grandchildren, of course, but above all a symbolic loss for both, particularly at a time when it is difficult to draw a line between a “before” and an “after”. » (p. 175)