A Family Is What You Make It? Legal Recognition and Regulation of Multiple Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiparental family structures, in which there are more than two parents, are becoming increasingly common. Thus, they defy the social and legal conception of the nuclear family. Yet, despite the growing number of multiparental families, their legal status in most jurisdictions is not recognized, leaving various issues unaddressed and potentially risking the children’s best interests. This paper examines how the legislatures and courts of California, Canada, and the U.K. recognize and regulate multiparental families. It shows that the treatment of multiparental families varies from non-recognition of any status, through regulation of the multiparental family, to the recognition of the multiparental family based on parental agreements. The paper identifies five distinct categories of multiparental family structures, and suggests that the allocation of parental status should be made possible to each of these structures. To do so, it is suggested that the allocation of parental status will not be determined by traditional doctrines. Rather, it should be guided by both the intentions of the parties to the parental agreement, and the child’s best interests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".