Available in Audio Format:

Imagine a lesbian couple and a sperm donor choosing to raise a child together — or a polyamorous trio sharing parenting responsibilities. Must our government and courts recognize all of them as parents? 

This question was brought before the Superior Court of Quebec in V.M. c. Directeur de l’État Civil, in which three families challenged Quebec’s two-parent limit under the Civil Code. Unlike other provinces, which allow common law courts to recognize more than two parents, Quebec’s civil law framework does not. The plaintiff families argued that the Civil Code’s two-parent limit violated their Charter rights — both under section 7 (liberty and security of the person) and section 15 (equality), as well as various rights under the Quebec Charter. 

The court rejected most of the plaintiffs’ arguments as either unfounded or unnecessary to decide. But the Court found that Quebec’s two-parent limit violated the right to equality under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the court struck down the two-parent limit in the Civil Code. 

How the Court Got There 

Under the Charter, the government is prohibited from violating equality rights. In other words, the government cannot discriminate based on race, sex, disability, or what courts call an “analogous ground” – something along the same lines as any of these categories. One example of an analogous ground affirmed by Canadian courts since the 1990s is sexual orientation, a term which does not appear in the Charter itself. In the Quebec court case in question, the plaintiffs argued that family status is an analogous ground, and that the two-parent limit violates their right to equality on that basis. 

One of the plaintiffs’ key arguments in this case was that children raised by three parents are denied a benefit when one parent is legally excluded — lacking authority over education, health care, travel, and decision-making. The court agreed, emphasizing that these children didn’t choose their family model and shouldn’t be discriminated against because of it.  

The Quebec government argued that the two-parent rule is justified because it supports clarity and predictability. The court rejected that argument, stating that the government’s goals for clarity and predictability can be achieved without excluding additional parents. For example, Ontario’s legislative scheme allows up to four people to parent a child if they enter a “pre-conception parentage agreement.” 

The ruling ignores or rejects the most basic realities of parenthood and the nature of the family, which is that children have two parents, not three.

The Court’s Troubling Abuse of Judicial Power 

The Court’s reasoning – that section 15 of the Charter, some 43 years after it was enacted, requires the most basic principles of family law to be thrown out – is absurd. The law does not deny children who are being raised by three or more adults equal rights in law. Rather, it treats all children the same.  

The ruling ignores or rejects the most basic realities of parenthood and the nature of the family, which is that children have two parents, not three. The two-parent model, far from being arbitrary as the court suggests, is natural – based on God’s good creation – and long recognized as such in law. In fact, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the family as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society,” worthy of state protection. 

The court’s claim that the Civil Code inappropriately forces families to “renounce” or deny their chosen family model is not true. Many people, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and stepparents, often play parenting roles without legal status. The Civil Code does not devalue those roles but simply limits who holds legal authority. Not only does this reflect the basic nature of families, it also has many practical benefits, such as limiting the number of parties who can end up involved in a custody dispute and sharing custody. 

Why Limit Legal Parenthood? 

The state has strong reasons to keep the number of legal parents limited to two: 

• Accountability: The two-parent limit presumes that those responsible for procreation should take responsibility for their child. 

• Efficiency: Legal disputes are easier to manage when only two parents are involved. 

• Predictability: Limiting parentage allows the government to determine parentage with certainty. 

• Ethics: although not Quebec’s priority, a two-parent model better reflects a biblical framework that is best suited for the rearing of children.  

Just imagine a five-parent family splitting up. Who ought to have custody? Who makes decisions about health or education? The logistics could be overwhelming, with a child or children caught in a nightmare not of their own making, and courts could face unprecedented complexity without a two-parent limit.  

Just imagine a five-parent family splitting up. Who ought to have custody? Who makes decisions about health or education?

Furthermore, if the two-parent limit is arbitrary, as the court says, where will courts draw the line? And if limiting the number of legal parents to two is unconstitutional, what about limiting the number of spouses to two? Could this reasoning be used to justify polygamous marriages? The Quebec court says no but offers no clear reasoning why not. 

The court’s ruling may set a precedent that’s hard to contain. By prioritizing personal preferences of adults, the court sidelines valid concerns about practical consequences and impacts. 

Final Thoughts 

In our secular society, families come in many forms, and society can—and should—treat all people with dignity and respect. But that does not mean courts may redefine the legal structure of parenthood and families to suit adult lifestyle preferences. 

Even if courts disagree with the legislature’s stance on parentage, overriding legislative authority under the guise of equality undermines legal coherence and democratic legitimacy. The Quebec Superior Court has imposed a fundamental change to a key pillar of Quebec law, without input from elected representatives, civil society, or the church. Deciding what a family is cannot be left up to judges alone, based on their views of what equality requires. 

We do not know yet if the Quebec government will appeal the ruling, but ARPA will be following this case closely.