"Race Is Not a Determinative Factor": Mixed Race Children and Custody Cases in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistics suggest that an increase will occur in the number of custody disputes involving mixed race children in Canada. This article considers the extent to which the fact that a child is mixed race factors into child custody determinations, and how courts consider it. It also discusses whether considering a child's mixed race heritage is helpful in the child-custody context. The article first explains the use of "race" and "culture" in the Canadian context, then reviews the literature on mixed race children and the law, before examining legislation on the "best interests of the child." The focus of the paper is an analysis of reported Canadian custody cases in which a child's mixed race heritage was mentioned in the written judgment, both before and after the leading case, Van de Perre v. Edwards. The case-law analysis considers questions such as judicial racism, "race-matching," and how race and culture are weighed against other factors relevant to a child's best interests. The conclusion offers suggestions for how courts should deal with custody disputes over mixed race children, based on trends identified in the case law. While racialized parents are not inevitably best suited for primary custody of mixed race children, it is key for any parent seeking custody to demonstrate their ability to foster the healthy development of a child's multifaceted identity. More directive legislative language might be useful in order to ensure that at least some judicial attention is paid to race and culture. Finally, taking judicial notice of the relevance of race would also be helpful in acknowledging the persistent existence of racism in Canadian society, as would a more diversified Canadian judiciary.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".