HAVE AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS PASSED LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO CANADA BILL C-223?
By Gene C. Colman, B.A., LL.B.
Canada federal Bill C-223 would effectively abolish the use of reunification therapy of any kind that would serve to improve a child’s relationship with an estranged parent. The bill would also outlaw evidence of parental alienation. The Canadian bill is part of wider movement on this continent to discredit parental alienation and to forbid Canadian courts from using measures to improve an alienated child’s relationship with a parent. The bill wraps these measures under the umbrella of protecting women and children from abusive men and their family violence. What is happening in this area of the law south of our border?
No US states have outright banned evidence of parental alienation (PA) claims in family court, as
Canada’s Bill C-223 proposes, but several have restricted its consideration when abuse allegations exist, often via Kayden’s Law implementations. Multiple states have passed laws1 limiting or regulating reunification therapy (RT), frequently tied to PA theories, prohibiting coercive elements like no-contact orders or out-of-state camps unless evidence-based and safe.
Limits on Reunification Therapy
These laws target RT programs criticized for isolating children from safe parents to “reunify”
with rejected ones, often amid PA claims.
| State | Law/Key Provisions | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Kayden's Law-aligned: Bans non-consensual RT camps | 2024 |
| California | Piqui's Law (SB 331/Fam. Code §3193): This law explicitly prohibits family courts from ordering children into reunification camps or therapies that require the child to be cut off from the preferred parent. It also bans the use of private transport agents to forcibly remove children and mandates extensive domestic violence screening. | 2023 |
| Colorado | HB 24-1350 (Rev. Stat. §14-10-127.5): The legislation requires courts to prioritize child safety in custody disputes, regulates the use of reunification therapy — RT only if scientifically proven safe/effective — and mandates rigorous domestic violence training for family court judges and evaluators. No isolation from trusted adults permitted. | 2023 |
1Kayden’s Law, formally the Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act (Title XV of the 2022 Violence1 Against Women Act reauthorization), prioritizes child safety in custody cases by mandating courts to weigh abuse evidence—including domestic violence and coercive control—over parental reunification efforts like therapy when danger exists; it incentivizes states with grants to restrict unproven programs and train judges on trauma.
| State | Law/Key Provisions | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Maryland | Passed reforms that align expert witness standards and abuse evaluation requirements with the federal Kayden's Law, creating stricter hurdles before any reunification therapy can be court-ordered. | 2024 |
| Pennsylvania | Kayden's Law – (SB 78 / Act 8): This legislation bars courts from ordering reunification programs that lack peer-reviewed evidence of safety and effectiveness. It specifically targets programs that require separating a child from a safe parent without mutual agreement. | 2024 |
| Texas | HB 3783: Bans no-contact orders with preferred parent during treatment, bans out-of-state transport for intensive therapy camps, strict limits on RT, no joint counseling for abuse victims, and no forced isolation from trusted adults. | 2025 |
| Tennessee | Abrial's Law: RT orders must prove child's best interest; non-participant parent retains communication rights. | 2024 |
| Utah | Om's Law - HB 272: This law mirrors the federal Kayden's Law goals by tightening the criteria for ordering reunification therapy and ensuring child safety is the paramount consideration in custody decisions. | 2024 |
Federal Kayden’s Law (VAWA 2022) incentivizes states with grants, prohibiting RT predicated on cutting child from trusted parent unless proven therapeutic
Limits on Parental Alienation Evidence
No direct bans on PA evidence exist, but laws curb its dominance:
- Kayden’s Law states (CA, CO, UT, PA, TN, MD, AZ): Prohibit custody changes/restrictions solely to “improve deficient relationship” with one parent, sidelining PA when abuse alleged; prioritizes safety.
- New Jersey (2026 amendments, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4): Bans assuming PA without investigating child’s resistance reasons.
- Courts must weigh PA against credible abuse evidence; PA not DSM-recognized, often deemed unreliable under Daubert standards.
Pending Legislation
As of March 2026 –
- Massachusetts: Katherine’s Law (H.4017) mandates abuse training, prohibits custody to abusers favoring RT/PA; strengthens protections where RT causes harm.
- Nevada: The state legislature recently began reviewing provisions modeled after Kayden’s Law in 2025 to restrict the use of non-evidence-based expert testimony and coercive reunification treatments.
- New Jersey (S2337): Currently proposed legislation aims to implement Kayden’s Law provisions in the state. It would prohibit judges from ordering a child to be removed or restricted from contacting a competent, non-abusive parent solely for the purpose of improving the relationship with the other parent.
- North Dakota: Pushes abolishing PA (SB 2184, 2025), but status unclear.
- Ohio: While a specifically named bill is still in the drafting and advocacy phases as of early 2026, there is a heavily organized legislative push by advocates and legal scholars to “Bring Kayden’s Law to Ohio” to reform how the state’s family courts weigh protection orders and child safety in custody battles.
- Oregon (SB 1029): Introduced recently, this bill aims to fulfill Kayden’s Law requirements by directing the state supreme court to prescribe minimum experience requirements for expert witnesses, mandate training on abuse, and prohibit courts from ordering reunification treatments that force a child to bond with an abusive parent.
- Rhode Island (S1134): This bill is literally titled the “Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act (Kayden’s Law).” It establishes comprehensive guidelines and training requirements for courts and heavily restricts reunification treatments unless scientifically proven safe.
Conclusions
The proposed Canadian bill is part of a wider movement in North America to abolish or restrict reunification therapy. The Canadian bill seems to go further than most American jurisdictions in its intent to make evidence of parental alienation inadmissible.
Those academics and community academics who will be presenting to the House of Commons
committee that will be considering Bill C-223 should focus on some pivotal issues:
- They should focus on the social science evidence that demonstrates how Reunification Therapy and similar programs have empirically proven to be effective.
- They should explain how Parental Alienation is a real-life phenomenon that impacts both father and mother victims. The proposed reforms would permanently excise many mothers from their children’s lives.
- They should explain how the current Divorce Act already protects family violence victims (as it should).
- They should explain how American jurisdictions that have passed similar legislation have simply ‘gotten it wrong’. Legislation should be based upon credible social science as opposed to political social science
