Parenting Coordination Law in the U.S. and Canada: A Review of the Sources and Scope of the <scp>PC</scp>'s Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of parenting coordination has continued from its informal beginnings in the 1980s to the present where more than twenty states and provinces have enacted statutes or rules regarding parenting coordinator appointments. Parenting coordination evolved as a tool for courts attempting to manage the conflicts between parents that placed children of divorce and parental separation at risk for behavioral, emotional, and psychological problems. Use of parenting coordinators (PCs) in some form now occurs in almost every jurisdiction, even those with no formal statute or rule. This review examines the legal foundations for court authority to order parenting coordination interventions as well as the legal efforts to define the scope of the PC's authority in individual cases. Included is the examination of the statutes, rules, and case law illustrating many of the controversies and psycholegal flashpoints in the field. AFCC's updated Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (2019) reflect maturation and professionalization of the intervention via suggestions for training, professional competence, and ethical guidance. The authors offer assistance and suggestions for those working to develop or improve legal parenting coordination frameworks.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".