The Payoffs and Pitfalls of Laws that Encourage Shared Parenting: Lessons from the Australian Experience
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionI. The transformation of the law ofpost-separation parenting1. The indissolubility of parenthood2. From legal to parenting3. Legislative support for parenting4. The move towards equal time: North America5. The move towards equal time: developments in EuropeII. The Australian law reforms1. The background to the 2006 amendments in Australia2. The changes made by the 2006 amendments in Australiaa. Parental responsibilityb. The twin pillarsc. Obligations of lawyers, mediators and counsellorsd. A revolution in the service systemIII. Research evidence on the Australian reforms1. Reduced filings in court and increased use of mediation2. Levels of carea. The role of law in affecting social changeb. Judicial decision-making and care after 2006c. Shared care in the general population of separated parents3. Concerns about violence and abusea. The spectrum of violenceb. System capacity for addressing violence and safety issuesc. Shared care in cases where there are safety concerns4. Lessons from Australia: the payoffs and pitfallsa. The importance of alignment with community valuesb. Legislation as community educationc. Guidance on when care is, and is not, appropriated. Emphasise the importance of maintaining children s relationships with both parents and with others who are important to theme. Avoid presumptions about timef. Avoid bifurcation in the law of after separationConclusionIntroductionShould legislation encourage parenting? This is the latest debate in the long-running argument that has been occurring around the world on the shape of legislation governing post-separation arrangements. Many jurisdictions, including Australia, have gone a long way down this track. Others, such as England and Wales,1 and Hong Kong,2 have had more recent debates on this issue, with concerns being expressed by some that any change to the existing law will lead to serious adverse consequences.3 Of course Canada had its own vigorous debates on law reform in this area more than a decade ago.4One of the many complications in answering this question is the sometimes confused use of the language of shared parenting or shared care. There is no set definition of what care means, but there is widespread agreement that it need not mean equal time. In the academic and professional literature, a common minimum definition is thirty per cent of nights per year.5 In some jurisdictions, the definition is set by legislation. In Utah, for example, joint physical custody is defined to mean that the child stays with each parent overnight for more than thirty per cent of the year.6 In Australia, as a result of changes made in 2008 to the child support legislation, care is defined as thirty-five per cent of nights or more per year for each parent.7 In Canada, shared custody is defined in the 1997 Federal Child Support Guidelines as at least forty per cent of the time with each parent.8In the recent debates about (minor) changes to the Children Act 19899 in England and Wales, the term shared parenting has been used to mean almost any arrangement that does not involve sole to one parent while denying access to the other. In this usage, it may mean nothing more than parental responsibility (a fundamental feature of the Children Act 1989 from its inception) and some regular contact. An amendment made to the Children Act 1989 in 2014 provides that where a parent can be involved in the child's life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm, the court should presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».