MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086644390 · doi:10.1111/fcre.12498

Does A Parent's Right to Parenting Matter in Termination of Parental Rights? An Analysis of Court Cases

2020· article· en· W3086644390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vered Ben‐David

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Court Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmNeglectPsychologyPerspective (graphical)WelfareQuarter (Canadian coin)Constitutional rightDevelopmental psychologyLawPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatrySupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The right to parenting refers to the biological parent's right to make decisions about the care and wellbeing of the child and is considered a fundamental constitutional right. But if the child faces imminent risk of harm, this right can be revoked. This study examines the right to parenting in child maltreatment cases where parental rights were terminated and the way this right was balanced against other rights and interests of the child and parents. Drawing on a sample of 212 court cases, the study found that the right to parenting was discussed by the courts only in a quarter of the cases. It was also found that the right to parenting was referenced more often in less severe cases than in more severe cases. This paper discusses legal marginalization as reflective of the social marginalization of families involved in the child welfare system and the importance of a deliberate consideration of the right to parenting in every individual case from a legal as well as therapeutic perspective. It suggests that when professionals neglect parental rights they may also fail to provide parents with a full chance to participate in services that could help them improve their parenting skills and be reunified with their children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Court ReviewSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207