The <i><scp>AFCC‐Ontario</scp> Parenting Plan Guide</i> and <i>Template</i>: Jurisdictionally‐Specific Resources for Family Justice Professionals and Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the development of the concept of parenting plans and the different approaches to providing materials that can help parents and professionals to make individualized, future‐oriented plans for children post‐separation. More than a quarter century after American states began to enact laws to encourage the use of parenting plans, Canada amended its legislation to abandon the proprietary concepts of “custody” and “access,” and encourage the use of parenting plans rather than “custody orders”. To support the making and use of individualized, child‐focused parenting plans, the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC‐O) prepared its Parenting Plan Guide and Parenting Plan Template . These web‐based materials are available without charge to parents and their professional advisors. The Guide discusses the value of parental co‐operation and planning, while recognizing that in cases where there are serious issues of abuse, violence or parental mental health, a protective judicial role and court orders may be needed. The Guide offers advice on the making of developmentally‐appropriate parenting plans, and the Template provides possible alternatives for the wording of specific clauses. While the available parenting plan materials from different jurisdictions have broadly similar content, there is value in having family justice organizations, including chapters of the AFCC, develop their own materials, that are consistent with the laws, justice processes and resources of their jurisdiction. The Ontario experience suggests that judges, lawyers and parents may be more likely to use jurisdictionally‐specific materials rather than more generic resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".