The evidence, which has been provided to you, suggests otherwise. According to the new biography by Michael Broers, part of which has been provided to you, definitely states otherwise:
'Indeed, although ready to assert his own opinions, Napoleon showed himself willing to bow to the experts...'
Matters of family, and therefore family law, were not trivial to Napoleon and were a significant part of the Code Civile. Obviously, you haven't taken a look at the Code, or, you are ignoring what it is composed of.
In short, you are wrong in your assessment. It is quite apparent that your mind is made up and you are unwilling to accept any evidence contrary to your fixed opinions on the subject.
Broers further states on page 354 (in the section on the Code Civile):
'It was in his opinions on the balance of these 'transactions' that Napoleon emerges as a leader who reflected public opinion, rather than as one determined to shape it, and herein lay the foundations of his success. He emerged as a radical revolutionary over property rights, their exercise, and their moral origins; as a reactionary over social matters, though not from a Catholic perspective; and as a mediator between the legal traditions of north and south, even though he had a marked personal preference fro the tradition of written, Roman law. Napoleon continued the political balancing act between left and right that characterized his politics in these years, but, given his willingness to enter the most sensitive issues without hiding his views, it is reasonable to think that his opinions were genuine.'
So the only conclusion that can be drawn from your postings and opinions is that you are more than ready to accept anything, accurate or not, that is negative about Napoleon and either not to accept, or to trivialize, anything that is positive. Again, that isn't an example of historical inquiry where facts are assembled and a valid conclusion is reached.