Judicial Reliance on Parental <scp>IQ</scp> in Appellate‐Level Child Welfare Cases Involving Parents with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) are over-represented in child welfare cases. Although IQ per se is an invalid indicator of parenting abilities, this study examined the prevalence of judicial consideration of parental IQ test evidence in US appellate cases. METHODS: The present authors conducted Boolean searches of Westlaw Corporation's case database since 1999. The present authors used a six-question checklist to survey the 42 most recent American appellate cases involving termination of parental rights (TPR) decisions that included evidence of parental intellectual and developmental disabilities based on IQ. RESULTS: In 86% of cases, parental low IQ was presented as a barrier to parenting competence. Higher courts uphold TPR decision in 81% of cases involving parents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Parental IQ scores are routinely relied upon to judge parenting capacity in custody cases where parents have intellectual and developmental disabilities. The present authors recommend more comprehensive assessments examining a broader range of contextual variable that may impact on parenting abilities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".