A Voice of the Child Report is a written account of what a child says about their living arrangements, their relationship with each parent, and their day-to-day life, prepared by a trained interviewer and filed with the court so the child’s views reach the judge without the child having to testify. The report is deliberately non-evaluative. The interviewer records the child’s words; they do not recommend a custody outcome, diagnose anyone, or decide what is in the child’s best interests.
Canadian family law requires courts to consider a child’s views and preferences when making a parenting order, with weight given according to the child’s age and maturity. This report is the most common way judges meet that obligation in contested custody and access cases.
What the Report Covers
The report captures the child’s specific statements about where they want to live, how time with each parent feels, school preferences, and the texture of their daily routine. The Department of Justice Canada describes it as “a limited assessment, appearing only to gauge the wishes of a child.”1Department of Justice Canada. Voice of the Child in Court Proceedings The interviewer writes down what the child said. That is the whole product.
This is a narrower instrument than a full custody evaluation, which involves home visits, interviews with teachers and therapists, psychological testing, and clinical recommendations, and typically runs $10,000 to $20,000 or more over several months. A Voice of the Child Report focuses on the interview and is usually finished in weeks.
It also differs from a Guardian ad Litem, who investigates and tells the court what they think serves the child’s best interests, and from an attorney for the child, who argues for the child’s stated wishes the way a lawyer represents an adult client. The report sits between those roles. It conveys perspective without advocating.
When a Court Orders One
Courts authorize a report when a child is mature enough to express a reasoned preference. There is no fixed minimum age. Most jurisdictions assess the individual child’s development rather than apply a cutoff, though reports are uncommon for children under about seven. The older and more articulate the child, the more weight the court generally gives to the stated preference.
Common triggers include:
- Relocation disputes, where one parent wants to move and the child’s feelings about the move matter directly.
- High-conflict cases where parents describe the child’s wishes in contradictory ways and the court needs an independent record.
- Proposed changes to parenting time that are substantial enough for the child’s view to count.
Either parent’s lawyer can request the report, or a judge can order one on their own motion. When the order comes from the bench, it usually signals that the existing evidence has left a gap the court cannot resolve without hearing from the child.
Who Conducts the Interview and How It Runs
The interviewer is typically a social worker, psychologist, or lawyer with specific training in child-focused interviewing. In many Canadian jurisdictions, organizations like the Hear the Child Society maintain rosters. Counsel often agree on a professional; if they cannot, the court appoints one.
Before any interview happens, the professional needs a signed court order defining the scope and the questions to be explored. A narrow order keeps the process focused and protects the interviewer’s authority to proceed.
Interviews happen in a neutral, child-friendly office. The professional meets with the child at least twice. The two sessions give the child time to build trust with a stranger and let the interviewer check whether what the child says is consistent across visits. Each parent typically brings the child to one session so the interviewer sees the child in both contexts without favoring either household.
What the child is told at the start matters. The professional should explain, in age-appropriate language, that the report will go to the judge and that both parents may see it. Promising confidentiality is risky and potentially dishonest, because the record often becomes part of the case file. The honest version is simpler: the child’s words will be treated respectfully, but they will not be kept secret.
After the sessions, the interviewer has roughly two to four weeks to produce the report. Once finalized, it is filed with the court and copies go to all lawyers on the case.2Family Mediation Canada. Voice of the Child Report Guidelines The child’s views enter the record without the child entering the courtroom.
What It Costs
Fees generally run between $800 and $2,500. The main driver is how many children are being interviewed. One child falls at the lower end; three or four siblings push the cost higher because each child needs separate sessions and the parent interviews take longer.
The court order or the parties’ agreement should say how the cost is divided. Equal splits are common, but a judge can assign the full amount to one parent where incomes differ significantly. If paying the fee is a real barrier, raise it early. Court fee waivers usually cover only fees owed to the court itself, not payments to outside professionals. Some dispute resolution offices have discretion to reduce costs for low-income parties when funding exists, but nothing is guaranteed.
How Judges Weigh What the Child Said
A child’s stated preference is one factor among many. It is not a vote. The Divorce Act lists the child’s views alongside ten other considerations, including each parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent, the history of care, and family violence.3Lexum. Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) – Section 16
U.S. courts take the same posture. The preference is relevant, not dispositive, and courts describe it as “but one of” the statutory factors a judge must weigh.4American Bar Association. Do I Have a Voice? An Empirical Analysis of Children’s Voices in Michigan Custody Litigation The judge keeps full discretion to rule against the child’s wishes when those wishes conflict with safety or long-term welfare. In practice, the older the child and the more specific the reasoning, the harder it is for a judge to set the preference aside without explaining why.
When a Child’s Preference Gets Discounted
Judges watch for signs that the stated wishes are not genuinely the child’s own. The clearest red flags are adult-sounding phrases repeated verbatim, grievances that mirror one parent’s talking points, and an inability to give any independent reason for rejecting the other parent. Research on parental alienation notes that when a child has adopted a distorted view of a parent, their opinions on living arrangements become “biased and inauthentic.”5Taylor & Francis Online. Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as a Form of Family Violence and Child Abuse
Courts handle suspected coaching by adjusting the weight of the preference rather than throwing the report out. The guiding principle is that children have “a voice, but not a choice.”5Taylor & Francis Online. Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as a Form of Family Violence and Child Abuse A parent who can corroborate coaching with other evidence, such as text messages, recordings, or testimony from a therapist, strengthens the argument for giving the child’s statements less weight.
There is a practical twist here. A report showing signs of coaching can rebound on the coaching parent. Judges who detect alienation may treat the behavior itself as evidence that the coaching parent is unwilling to support the child’s relationship with the other parent, which is a separate factor that can shift the outcome.
Challenging a Report You Disagree With
A parent who disputes the report’s contents has the right to challenge it, though the mechanism varies. The most direct route is to request that the author be called to testify and submit to cross-examination.
Cross-examination usually focuses on interview technique: whether proper rapport was built, whether questions were leading, and whether the child’s statements were recorded accurately. A parent challenging the report often argues the child’s views were not independent or freely given but shaped by the other parent. Even where cross-examination is robust, courts generally adjust the weight of the child’s views rather than strike the report.
If a parent believes the report is fundamentally flawed, they can ask for a new report from a different professional, a full custody evaluation, or both. Courts are reluctant to put a child through repeated interviews without a reason, so a request for a second report should point to specific deficiencies in the first.
When Siblings Disagree
Conflicting preferences across siblings create one of the harder situations judges face. Courts generally start from a presumption that keeping siblings together serves their best interests, because the sibling relationship provides stability. When one child wants to live with one parent and another prefers the other, the judge weighs each child’s maturity, the strength of the sibling bond, and the specific reasons each gave.
The parent asking for siblings to be split carries a heavy burden. They need to show that separation genuinely serves the children better than keeping them together, and the children’s conflicting preferences are rarely enough on their own. Therapist reports, teacher observations, and formal evaluations help. Judges also look at how realistic it is to maintain regular contact between separated siblings through visits and video calls.
An older teenager who gives clear, independent reasons for a different arrangement usually gets more deference than a younger child echoing a parent. Even then, a judge who finds the sibling bond is stabilizing for both children may decline to separate them.
What the Report Cannot Do
The report is a snapshot. Children’s feelings change as circumstances evolve, and a report prepared six months before trial may not reflect where the child stands at the hearing. If time has passed or circumstances have shifted materially, the court can order a fresh interview. The original author has no obligation to update their report unless specifically directed.
The report also cannot capture what a child will not say. Some children freeze, give answers they think the adult wants to hear, or refuse to state a preference because they feel disloyal. A skilled interviewer notices these dynamics, but the report records only what was actually said. If a child declines to participate or offers little, the professional notes that, and the court proceeds on the other evidence. No child is compelled to speak, and a refusal does not count against either parent.
Finally, the report is not legal representation for the child. In cases involving serious allegations of abuse, neglect, or family violence, a child may need their own lawyer, not just an interviewer. The interviewer captures a perspective at one moment; an attorney for the child can advocate throughout the proceeding, cross-examine witnesses, and protect the child’s interests across the full span of the litigation.