RACIST PARENTING AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD: A LEGAL AND ETHICAL ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we use a recent Manitoba child custody case to provide a legal and ethical account of the notion of the best interests of the child. We explore the tension between the best interests of the child and parental rights to expression of a racist nature. We consider how the interests of different actors – the state, parents and children – are considered in the context of racist parenting. The parent-child relationship is salient in formulating and influencing acceptable and unacceptable thoughts, ideas and behaviours in children but the views of parents do not always coincide with what society tolerates as acceptable. We ask, when do parental views on subjects such as religion, race or politics reach the level of ‗legal unacceptability‘ such that a parent could face a loss of custody as a result of expressing or teaching these views to his or her child? We also consider the ethical frames which apply to this proposed fact situation to help us make sense of the best interests of the child principle where racist parental beliefs are at the fore. This article encourages advocates, care-givers, and adjudicators to work with Solomon-like wisdom for the best interests of the child by bringing to consideration the commonly taken-for-granted jurisprudential and ethical meanings and interpretations that are perhaps over-embedded and underconsidered in the cliche-oriented notion of the best interests of the child.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".