Supervised Access as a Stepping Stone Rather than a Destination: A Qualitative Review of Ontario Services & Policies for Assisting Families Transitioning from Supervised Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supervised access or exchange programs are designed to facilitate safe access between a non-custodial parent and child where there are concerns about intimate partner violence, poor parenting, alienation, addiction, mental health or lack of a parent’s relationship with the child. In Ontario, the government funds programs for subsidized medication at over 100 sites. This paper reports on a project that reviewed international literature on supervised access, analyzed reported Ontario case law, and interviewed with Ontario Judges, Lawyers and Supervised Access Program providers about this service. The laying of criminal charges, often related to intimate partner violence, was the most frequently reason given by the court for considering some form of supervised access. Supervision is seen as a last resort to be used in only “extreme circumstances” and intended to be temporary, but in some cases continues for years. There is a lack of therapeutic services to facilitate transitioning to unsupervised access, and the public services are often not suitable for older children. Given the concerns long-term supervision, it will normally be appropriate for orders for supervised access to include provisions for review after a certain time period or when stipulated conditions, normally concerning the access parent, have been satisfied. There is clearly a need for further research and data, both in Ontario and more broadly. The central issues addressed in this report, how to more effectively help parents transition to unsupervised access and what are the effects of long-term supervised access, need to be studied. The views of parents and children must be considered about these and related questions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".