Does A Parent's Right to Parenting Matter in Termination of Parental Rights? An Analysis of Court Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".