Supporting grandparent/grandchild contact under the Care of Children Act 2004: an assessment of current options, and a call for change.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Care of Children Act 2004 reformed the law of child guardianship in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, it did not result in any special legal standing for grandparents seeking contact with their grandchildren, so as to ensure their continued presence in a grandchild’s life following a relationship breakdown, or where contact is resisted.METHODS: Non-doctrinal policy law research methods were used to analyse policies that were relied upon during the law’s promulgation, impacts of the law since its enactment, and associated issues that have arisen in its application by practitioners. Litigation to date involving grandparental rights of contact was studied, using Lexis Nexis Westlaw New Zealand, including its family law suite of searchable databases.FINDINGS: The research revealed a number of processes available under the Care of Children Act and associated family law legislation which may be helpful to grandparents who seek contact with grandchildren. However, none of them resolve the central issue of lack of legal standing, which continues to be an important impediment for grandparents who seek assurance of continuing contact with their grandchildren following family breakdown.CONCLUSIONS: Examples of law changes which have occurred in other jurisdictions, notably Canada, are offered in support of reform of the Care of Children Act, which would bring Aotearoa New Zealand more in line with other, more progressive countries in its treatment of grandparent/grandchild relationships.
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 | 0.021 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".