A Canadian law that allows mothers to be prosecuted under a separate infanticide provision after killing their children has come under renewed scrutiny, as global attention intensifies around Lindsay Clancy’s triple murder trial.
The controversial statute, introduced in 1948, sets a maximum prison sentence of five years for mothers in Canada who kill a child before the child’s first birthday while suffering from postpartum depression.
Canada’s approach differs from the legal framework in the United States, the United Kingdom and parts of Europe, as its Criminal Code includes infanticide provisions that apply specifically to mothers who kill their newborn children.
Infanticide is generally understood as the intentional killing of a baby or very young child, typically under the age of one. In Canada, Section 233 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offense for a mother to take her child’s life while her mind is considered “disturbed” as a result of childbirth or lactation.
The offense carries a significantly lighter penalty than murder or manslaughter, with the maximum punishment capped at five years in prison.
In stark comparison, crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, and break and entering with intent – where no human being died as a result – can carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment in Canada.
The infanticide law north of the border is wildly different to those in the US. Clancy, whose murder case ended in a mistrial this week, faced a maximum of life in prison.
The 36-year-old admitted to strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, to death in their Duxbury home on January 24, 2023.
Lindsay Clancy’s case was ruled a mistrial on Friday in Massachusetts, three years after she murdered her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan. A law in Canada, known as infanticide, sees mothers get five years in prison for killing their child before their first birthday
At the time of the killings, Clancy was married to her now ex-husband, Patrick Clancy. He testified in the trial that lasted five weeks
She pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis. She also attempted suicide after the killings.
She was on trial for five weeks, but on Friday, a judge ruled a mistrial after 12 jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision following 38 hours of deliberation.
Clancy will remain at a state-run medical facility while prosecutors determine if they wish to try her again.
But if the case had taken place in Canada, Clancy’s possible outcomes could have been far less consequential because Callan was less than a year old, according to a CBC report published on Tuesday.
The report, titled ‘How different would Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial look if it happened in Canada?’, delved into Canadian law and why some experts believe it is just.
‘Women who kill as a result of not recovering from childbirth should not face life imprisonment – that doesn’t really serve anyone’s interests if there was truly a postpartum illness at play,’ Isabel Grant, a University of British Columbia professor in the Allard School of Law, told the outlet.
Grant, who specializes in criminal law, has published pieces on homicide, including infanticide, she said.
She went on to slam the US for its approach to the matter.
ALSO READ: King Charles’s Fondness for Prince Harry Reveals How Father-Son Bond Has Shifted, Expert Says
‘The United States has taken a much harsher approach to these cases than in Canada, with young women being sentenced to extraordinarily long periods of incarceration in some of these cases,’ Grant added.
Under Canadian law, Clancy could have raised infanticide as a defense for the murder of baby Callan, but it would not have worked for Cora and Dawson, Grant said.
‘That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law,’ she stated to the outlet.
Isabel Grant, a University of British Columbia professor in the Allard School of Law, said that if Clancy’s case took place in Canada, she could have raised infanticide as a defense for the murder of eight-month-old Callan
Because of evidence pointing to Clancy’s mental health issues, Grant said: ‘It is possible she would have been charged with manslaughter for the older children and infanticide for the infant, but that would be a significant determination.’
Earlier this year, Cassie Acorn, a mom from Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island, Canada, was sentenced to one year in prison for killing her three-month-old daughter.
Little Winter Elizabeth Acorn was crying when her mother slammed her head against the floor of her apartment, leaving the little girl with head injuries that killed her.
A psychiatric evaluation after she was arrested showed Acorn suffered from postpartum depression – and her charges were downgraded from first-degree murder to infanticide.
With this downgrade, she was handed a one-year prison sentence in January 2026.
Clancy’s case, and subsequent mistrial, has unleashed fresh outrage for Canada’s lenient infanticide law.
Nellie Bowles, the co-founder of The Free Press, shared her opinion on the CBC’s recent article in a piece published on Friday.
She mentioned Grant’s ‘shortcoming’ comment, calling it ‘pro-choice taken to the nth degree.’
Infanticide legislation in Canada was passed in 1948 and amended in 1995. It has been upheld in a few recent cases and is used as an offense and a partial defense. (Pictured: Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney)
Bowles wrote: ‘Maybe postpartum should last until the kid’s 18, right? Maybe moms – if they’re under a lot of pressure and like, super, super stressed and changing Zoloft dosages and can’t figure out the Snoo— should be able to kill her offspring at any age?’
‘The deeper idea being proposed here seems to be that moms should kind of be able to kill their kids. Like, if they’re really, really stressed. In Canada, that’s the law already,’ she added.
Online users have also bashed the law after hearing about it, with one writing: ‘The maximum sentence for a mother killing her infant is only five years in prison.
‘Canada is one of the most evil nations on Earth. We have invaded and bombed countries for far less.’
‘There is something deeply, insanely wrong with Canada,’ wrote another.