A Presumption Against Shared Parenting for Family Court Litigants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared parenting is the most beneficial model for planning the future of many separating parents and their children. Shared parenting needs to be crafted, for appropriate cases, by willing parents on their own or through coaching by responsible lawyers, counselors, or mediators. Shared parenting is not an outcome that should be forced on high‐conflict parents against their will as a compromise in the hopes that they will grow into the plan. Separating parents with a history of domestic violence need to receive appropriate screening and assessment on the nature of the violence, the impact of the violence on the adult victim and children, and the interventions required by the perpetrator before a safe parenting plan can be designed. The Think Tank Report on shared parenting is to be commended for its work. The Report acknowledges some of the limitations of shared parenting in situations that pose risks to children and/or inadvertently promote ongoing conflicts between parents. My concern is that domestic violence victims will be forced into shared parenting or fear being labeled as “hostile” and “unfriendly parents” or accused of alienation. There continues to be a need for much more professional education on the ongoing risks of domestic violence and the implications for differentiated parenting plans. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Shared parenting is not for everyone. Litigating parents are unlikely to make shared parenting work. Case of domestic violence require screening and a differentiated parenting plan that recognizes safety, accountability and healing.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it