The legal construction of same-sex collaborative co-parenting in the UK and Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Empirical studies have revealed that a significant minority of lesbian and gay couples and individuals parent in ways that are not reflected by the heteronormative understandings of the family that underpin legal recognition. A striking example of this is collaborative co-parenting, also referred to as poly-parenting, where a child is conceived through artificial reproduction and both biological parents (and potentially their same-sex partners) remain involved in the child’s life. These families, where parenting does not necessarily occur solely within the context of an intimate relationship, challenge Martha Fineman’s notion of the sexual family, which remains influential in family law in the UK and elsewhere. What is more, these families may involve more than two adults with potential parental claims in relation to the child, which presents a direct challenge to the current limitation to two parents in UK family law. This paper discusses a small-scale qualitative interview study with same-sex parents, legal and other professionals in the UK and Canada in relation to their experiences of the legal framework surrounding family formation and recognition. The reason Canada was chosen as a comparator jurisdiction is that British Columbia has recently become the first jurisdiction to legislatively recognise multiple parents in the context of collaborative co-parenting. Therefore, the paper explores the advantages of dealing with this issue through legislation rather than the ad hoc case-by-case basis adopted in the UK. The paper will also consider the limitations of the legal reform models adopted in Canada and the UK in giving legal effect to the lived realities of this group of same-sex families. This will include discussion of the role that written agreements play in collaborative co-parenting arrangements, as well as the potential for recognising different sorts of parental figures in a child’s life through a more nuanced model of legal recognition. One particularly prominent theme that has emerged in the academic discussion of collaborative co-parenting families is that parenting within them is remains a gendered phenomenon. Feminist scholars have highlighted the need to take into account the gendered nature of family law generally and the unequal distribution of caregiving in these families. The impact of gendered norms surrounding the family and the influence of fathers’ rights discourse is undoubtedly of central importance. However, an overlooked issue in this debate is the gendered nature of reproduction itself and how this impacts differently on legal recognition for lesbian and gay male parents. This raises issues surrounding the ability to be registered on the child’s birth certificate, which is open to female couples that conceive through artificial insemination, compared to the requirement to obtain a court order for male couple who conceive with the involvement of a surrogate. Legal recognition can be an important aspect of family life, particularly in relation to same-sex families. Therefore, in exploring the issues outlined above, this paper hopes to contribute to the debate surrounding the legal response to these novel and potentially transformative collaborative co-parenting arrangements.
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 | 0,004 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,040 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».