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. 

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. 

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.’ 

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.  

More than six years after stepping away from duties as a working royal, Prince Harry has repeatedly used interviews, documentaries and his memoir to describe what he sees as the “generational trauma” he endured growing up as the younger son — the so-called royal “spare.”

In his 2023 autobiography, he put that feeling in stark terms: ‘I was the shadow, the support, the Plan B. I was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy.

‘I was summoned to provide back-up, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney, perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow.’

But newly revisited archive footage showing an 18-year-old Harry chatting about his sporting successes with his father, now King Charles, and Prince William, then 20, suggests a warmer dynamic than the one often associated with his later public reflections.

Body language specialist Judi James argues that the “strained and complex” father-son relationship Harry, 41, has frequently described is not necessarily supported by how he and Charles appeared together in the footage from that period.

She told the Daily Mail: ‘Charles’s physical awkwardness might be legendary but in clips like this one he appears to be giving Harry a unique form of watchful attention that is littered with subtle but powerful displays of fondness.’

The lighthearted conversation – which was filmed in Anglesey, north Wales, in June 2003 – shows Charles, William and Harry reflecting after a polo match. Charles praises his youngest son for his ‘brilliant’ performance.

‘You scored two goals didn’t you?’ Charles asked Harry, before the prince replied: ‘Three.’ His father then said: ‘Well done, brilliant.’

After that, William interjected: ‘I did all the hard work in the middle pitch obviously. Didn’t score any goals myself.’

At a later stage in the conversation, Harry jokingly calls his brother a ‘spoon’, adding: ‘I almost fell off my horse trying to get you the ball and you missed it!’

‘Spoon did you say?’ Charles queried, with Harry going on to explain: ‘It isn’t a swear word’.

Ms James notes that the lighthearted interaction between Charles and Harry highlights the ’empathy’ shared between the pair.

‘We have Charles creating a preferential form of proximity with his youngest son, both when he sits with one boy on either side and then very emphatically when another player joins them and Charles sits next to Harry, mirroring him and chatting quietly while William is now one seat away,’ she said.

‘It is clearly Harry who gets Charles’s prime and then exclusive attention in this video while William appears to have to work to dominate the spotlight or break into and take over the conversation.

‘Charles gives two different types of attention to his sons here: with Harry he appears gentle, caring and watchful but William is treated more like a fellow adult and equal.’

Ms James added while William appears both ‘confident and socially at ease’, Harry’s body language suggests he ‘might actually resonate more strongly with his father’.

She added: ‘Red-cheeked and bashful-looking, he sits hunched and glowering slightly, hiding his face behind his hand and a glass in a gesture of shyness that would probably promote feelings of empathy in his father, who often looked like the shy, awkward, isolated and less confident member of his family group when he was younger.’

And it appears that Charles, while not naturally a tactile father, appears to acknowledge his son’s cues ‘subtly’ here.

‘He pays his son individual and full eye-attention and his vocal tone softens and drops to signal affection as he tries to draw him into the conversation. 

‘He points at Harry’s banana to ask if it’s his “method of recovery” with an amused but nurturing approach and his features soften in a look of indulgence, along with his tone.’

The expert added that even when William is discussing his involvement in the sporting game and the challenges he faced trying to score, Charles’s ‘body position shows his closeness to Harry’.

‘He turns his head to listen as William talks, but his right hand remains close to his younger son and his right leg is splayed out next to and close to Harry,’ she explained.

Indeed, while Charles is often depicted as a father who was a ‘product of protocol and boarding schools’ and maintained a ‘stiff upper lip’ at all occasions, the King has always spoken fondly of his affection for his youngest son.

He referred to Harry as his ‘darling boy’ and in a 2017 interview for the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. Harry shared how he and his father, whom he affectionately referred to as ‘Pa’, would ‘talk for hours and hours’ about Charles’s passion for the environment.

He also revealed how he valued his father’s opinion saying: ‘I do end up picking your brains more now than I ever have done.’

That same year, William and Harry paid tribute to their father for being ‘there for us’ following the death of Princess Diana, during a BBC documentary to mark the 12th anniversary of her death.

Both princes were staying at Balmoral with their father in 1997 when Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris – and it was up to Charles to break the news to them.

Harry said of his father: ‘One of the hardest things for a parent to have to do is to tell your children that your other parent has died.

‘How you deal with that, I don’t know. But, you know, he was there for us. He was the one of the two left.’

Writing in Spare, Harry recalled that Charles sat him down on the bed to break the news of the car accident, calling him ‘my dear son’ as he told him how Diana had sustained head injuries that didn’t look likely to improve.

He writes: ‘What I do remember with stunning clarity is that I did not cry. Not a tear. My father did not hug me.’

While he claims Charles did not cry while breaking the news, he said his father put his hand on Harry’s knee and claimed everything would be OK. 

In 2021, during an interview on the Armchair Expert podcast with host Dax Shepard, Harry said his father had treated him ‘the way he was treated’, with Harry asking himself ‘so how can I change that for my own kids?’

The Duke then went on to add that he and Meghan had made the move to the US to ‘break the cycle’ of ‘genetic pain’ he had experienced growing up.

Harry suggested that Charles had ‘suffered’ because of his upbringing by the Queen and Prince Philip, and the Prince of Wales had ‘treated me the way he was treated’, calling it ‘genetic pain’.

Ms James added: ‘Tactile behaviours have never appeared to be Charles’s love language. 

‘It was Diana who put hugs on the royal PDA menu, while her husband could barely place his hand on her shoulder for their engagement photos without looking ill at ease.’

She notes that ultimately William ‘appears to have inherited Diana’s ease in public and in front of a camera’, while ‘Harry and Charles seem twinned in their inner awkwardness and signals of diffidence’.

‘They fall into a much more intimate and personal form of verbal dialogue that both seem happier and more comfortable with than with William’s alpha banter mode,’ she explained.

‘Their voices become private and softer and their speed of speech increases until they appear to be mumbling together in what almost sounds like their own form of dialogue.’

The heartwarming footage of the father-son pair comes as Harry is soon set to celebrate his 42nd birthday on September 15 – just weeks after he and Meghan Markle relocated back to the UK with their two children. 

Harry and Meghan, 45, will live in a non-royal residence outside of London. Their children Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, have both been enrolled in UK schools, ready to start next week.

But despite their close bond, Charles was said to have only been informed just days before the news dropped about the Sussexes’ return to Britain. 

Harry and Meghan will remain private individuals and non-working members of the Royal Family, in keeping with their ‘clearly expressed wishes and the agreement reached in recent years’.

He is understood to have visited his father at Highgrove House in Gloucestershire following an Invictus Games one-year-to-go event in Birmingham.

Harry was joined by his wife and two children in what is believed to have been the first time Archie and Lilibet had seen the monarch since Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June 2022.

Just weeks ago, sources close to Harry said he wanted to visit Britain ‘every few months’ over the next year after his reunion with King Charles last month.

Before deciding on a longer-term return, the Duke of Sussex said his most recent visit to the UK and time with his father left him feeling ‘buoyed’, ‘very happy’ and ‘really energised’.

Harry was already due to return to Britain in September for a week of engagements.

A source previously told The Sunday Times: ‘He wants more of a foothold here, more trips back, less courtroom drama. And he always loves seeing his family.’

Sign up to our Palace Confidential newsletter for FREE and we’ll send you an exclusive article on the moment the Royal Family started to question Meghan’s motivations. Get it HERE