section 215(4)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 215(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that evidence of recognizing a child or failing to provide maintenance for a child is proof of parentage or failure to provide necessaries of life, and receiving necessaries of life from someone else is not a defense.

SECTION WORDING

215(4) For the purpose of proceedings under this section, (b) evidence that a person has in any way recognized a child as being his child is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the child is his child; (c) evidence that a person has failed for a period of one month to make provision for the maintenance of any child of theirs under the age of sixteen years is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the person has failed without lawful excuse to provide necessaries of life for the child; and (d) the fact that a spouse or common-law partner or child is receiving or has received necessaries of life from another person who is not under a legal duty to provide them is not a defence.

EXPLANATION

Section 215(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the failure of a parent to provide for the basic necessities of life for their child. It establishes that evidence of a person recognizing a child as their own is considered proof that they are, in fact, the parent of the child in question. Similarly, evidence of a parent failing to provide for their child for a period of one month is considered proof that they have failed to provide for the child's basic needs without lawful excuse. This section aims to protect the rights of children by ensuring that they are not left without the necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing, and education. It holds parents accountable for their responsibilities towards their children and ensures that they cannot evade their duties by claiming that someone else is providing for the child. Furthermore, the section makes it clear that the fact that a child is receiving support from someone other than their legal guardian is not a defense against the parent's obligations. This emphasizes the importance of parents fulfilling their duty towards their children regardless of whether someone else is willing to provide for them. Overall, Section 215(4) demonstrates Canada's commitment to protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that children receive the basic necessities of life. It provides a legal mechanism for holding parents accountable for fulfilling their obligations towards their children and sends a strong message that neglecting children's needs will not be tolerated.

COMMENTARY

Section 215(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a crucial role in determining the legal obligations of parents towards their children. It provides a set of evidentiary rules that are applicable in proceedings related to child maintenance. These rules have far-reaching implications that impact the lives of countless families across Canada. In this commentary, I will discuss the different sub-sections of Section 215(4) and analyze their significance. Sub-section (b) of Section 215(4) suggests that any person who has recognized a child as being their own is assumed to be the child's biological parent. This recognition can be in the form of an admission, acknowledgment, or conduct that indicates a parent-child relationship. This evidentiary rule is based on the principle of paternity estoppel, which prohibits a person from denying their paternity once they have acknowledged it. This principle is important because it prevents parents from disclaiming their parental responsibilities on a whim or to avoid paying child support. The rule also provides a strong legal basis for a child to claim the entitlement to maintenance from their biological parent. Sub-section (c) of Section 215(4) stipulates that the failure of a parent to provide financial support to their children is deemed an offense. This provision has a broad scope and applies to children under the age of sixteen years. It means that parents have a legal obligation to provide their children with the necessaries of life, which includes food, clothing, and shelter. Failure to do so for more than one month can be considered a criminal offense. This provision reflects the State's commitment to protecting the welfare of children and ensuring that they have access to basic necessities. Sub-section (d) of Section 215(4) is a provision that takes into account the responsibility of individuals other than the biological parents to provide support to children. For example, a person who marries or enters into a common-law relationship with a parent assumes the role of a step-parent and is, therefore, obligated to provide financial support to the child. This evidentiary rule is significant because it provides a legal basis for children to claim support from their step-parents in cases where the biological parent is unable to fulfill their obligations. In sum, Section 215(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that upholds the legal rights and entitlements of children. It places a legal obligation on parents, both biological and step-parents, to provide the necessaries of life to their children, failing which they may face legal consequences. The evidentiary rules set out in this provision also offer a legal basis for children to claim maintenance from their parents and step-parents, providing them with a measure of financial security and stability.

STRATEGY

Section 215(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the offence of failing to provide necessaries of life to a child under the age of sixteen. This provision provides some evidentiary presumptions that can be used by the prosecution to prove that an accused person has failed to provide the necessary support to their child. Strategic considerations when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code of Canada include the strength of the evidence against the accused person, the credibility of witnesses, and the ability to rebut the evidentiary presumptions contained in the provision. One strategy that could be employed by the defence is to challenge the credibility of witnesses who provide evidence about the accused person's failure to provide support to their child. The defence may argue that the witnesses are biased or have a motive to lie, and may cross-examine them to try to uncover inconsistencies or contradictions in their testimony. Another strategy that could be employed is to challenge the evidentiary presumptions contained in the provision. For example, the defence may argue that the accused person had a lawful excuse for failing to provide support, such as being unable to do so because of financial hardship. The defence may also argue that evidence of a person recognizing a child as their own is not proof of paternity, and that DNA testing should be done to establish the biological relationship between the accused person and the child. A third strategy that could be employed is to negotiate a plea deal with the Crown. This may involve pleading guilty to a lesser offence or negotiating a sentence that is less severe than what would be imposed if the accused person were convicted at trial. Ultimately, the choice of strategy will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. A skilled criminal defence lawyer will carefully assess the evidence against the accused person, consult with the client to determine their goals and priorities, and develop a strategy that is tailored to the needs of the case.