A report by Professors Bala and Schuman of the Queen's University Faculty of Law has been the subject of a Journal article (May 27) and an editorial (Sunday, May 30). I want to offer some additional analysis.

The study involved a survey of 196 custody hearings, from across Canada, in which there were allegations of child abuse. In nine cases these allegations were proven to be false. (I judge this a rather small sample size on which to base statistics about the relative likelihood of mothers and fathers to be found to be intentionally lying.)

The real story is the rest of the data. In about 50 cases, the courts substantiated child abuse claims. These tragic situations were not dealt with as quickly as they should have been because the courts were tied up dealing with those other 146 cases.

In about 100 cases, the courts were unable to prove child abuse, but on the balance of evidence chose to take some measures to ensure the safety of the children.

How many of these cases represent children who have effectively have been cut off from one parent and one-half of their extended family, based on false allegations?

There will be situations where the stamina or financial resources of the designated villain will give out and they will give up trying to clear their name and regain access to their children; and perhaps a handful will eventually be found innocent, although the emotional and financial impact will remain.

Consider finally the 30 per cent, or about 65 cases, where the courts decided that evidence of abuse was unproven, and chose not to act upon it. The family law system did essentially nothing for them ... except drain their bank accounts and up the emotional ante between the former spouses.

This is just a sample of thousands of similar cases that happen across Canada every year.

Why does this happen?

It happens because the courts are the wrong place to resolve most issues of family breakup. It happens because the family law system naturally facilitates a winner-take-all confrontation.

People (both men and women) are capable of fabricating stories about their ex-partners in order to gain the prize — custody of, and access to, their children.

Imagine a different world. Imagine a Canada where parents who chose to separate are required to spend even a small fraction of the money they pour into the family law system into counselling and mediation.

Imagine a Canada where the process of dismantling a family starts with dealing with the emotional pain carried by both partners, so that separating parents can regain their focus as parents and act in the best interests of the children.

This is, in essence, the vision of the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Six months have passed since the committee released their report. Five weeks have gone by since Minister of Justice Anne McLellan responded with vague commitments of something happening in the next few years.

No amount of study can create a legal system in which it is possible to tell when one person is intentionally lying.

The Special Joint Committee did not advocate "hasty decisions to satisfy partisans," and neither do I. I want action, now, to change the family law system to be more child-friendly.

I am angry that so much of the legal system is unwilling to admit its powerlessness in dealing with the emotional pain of family breakup.

Careful action, which ensures that the right decision is made, is not the same as inaction motivated by political expediency. I can tell the difference, and I judge that Justice Minister Anne McLellan's constituents can as well.

Bill Tchir

Edmonton