PARENTAL ALIENATION: CANADIAN COURT CASES 1989–2008
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To gain a sound understanding of the dynamics and best responses to cases of children resisting contact with a parent, it is necessary to consider both the legal and psychological aspects of the situation.There is a small but important and growing body of empirically based psychological research about children resisting contact with parents, but there have been no published empirically based studies of the responses of the family justice system to such cases.This article is intended to begin to address this lacuna in the literature, reporting on a study of all reported Canadian cases between 1989 and 2008 that dealt with claims of "alienation" of children in the context of parental separation.The use of the concept of "alienation" in Canadian courts increased dramatically over these two decades, but this study reveals a complex and multifaceted set of cases with a range of responses depending on the judicial perceptions and the resources of the parents.fcre_1296 164..179 WHY IS ALIENATION A CONCERN FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM?The starting point in Canadian law for dealing with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent is the "maximum contact principle" of the Divorce Act: 16(10) . . . the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact. 1 The maximum contact principle has two aspects.First, the courts should ensure there is as much contact with each parent as is "consistent" with the best interests of the child.Second, if one parent is thwarting contact with the other parent or alienating the child from the other parent, that is an important factor in deciding whether to award custody to the parent who will facilitate contact with the other parent (known as the "friendly parent principle").The maximum contact principle reflects a significant body of social science literature which establishes that children in general have better outcomes after parental separation if they continue to have a close relationship with both parents; 2 however, in a high-conflict separation, frequent contact may be stressful for children.Canadian judges sometimes assert that "access is the right of the child," 3 and this type of rhetoric may be useful for reminding parents that it is in their children's interests to promote a relationship with the other parent.The use of "children's rights" terminology can, however, be problematic in alienation cases as it may suggest to the child or the alienating parent that not seeing the other parent is a distinct possibility, and that it is the "right" of the child to decide whether it will happen.4 Children may genuinely believe that they are making an independent decision to reject a parent, and that it is their "right" to do
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».