Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the significance of gender difference in the custodial claims of biological parents where de facto care of children has been transferred to unrelated parties. Drawing on media accounts, the trial transcript, and the 2007 decision in Hendricks v. Swan (the “Saskatoon Dad” case), as well as an extensive survey of similar reported cases, the author identifies changes in the construction of birth mothers and genetic fathers over time, both as claimants and non-claimants of custody. The author contends that despite significant differences in their biological roles, mothers and fathers are constructed as formally equal claimants in this context. Both mothers and fathers nonetheless lose out more often than not to third parties, often on grounds of instability rather than bonding. The role of gender in the application of the best interests test to claims by biological parents, particularly the extent to which gendered norms affect assessments of stability, is analyzed. In relation to biological non-claimants, the author addresses the erasure of the birth mother’s experience in Hendricks through the use of a formal equality lens and examines assumptions regarding non-disclosure of paternity that privilege the interests of genetic fathers. In conclusion, potential ways of avoiding or minimizing the trauma associated with these cases are briefly canvassed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".