Family Court Responses to Claims of Parental Alienation in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An increasing number of cases of parental separation involve high conflict and claims that a parent is alienating a child. This study analyzes reported family law cases involving claims of parental alienation in Quebec between 2017 and 2020 (n = 164). Bivariate analyzes were undertaken to establish correlations between family characteristics (child's age, safety issues concerning the children and parents, severity of the parental conflict, child's age, allegations of domestic violence and child abuse) and court decisions. Judges made a finding of parental alienation in a minority of cases where a claim of alienation was made, and in more than a quarter of cases did not resolve the claim. Issues of family violence were raised in about a quarter of the cases where alienation was an issue. The courts rarely dismissed a claim of violence and made a finding of alienation. The most common outcome of all cases was a continuation of the status quo, with a custody reversal in only a few cases (n = 7). Mothers were more often alleged to be engaging in alienating behaviour, but there is a lower rate of judicial substantiation of alienation against mothers, and the study did not find evidence of gender bias. Judicial findings of alienation were associated with substantiation by a child custody evaluator or the child protection service. Only a small portion of cases resulted in orders psychosocial interventions. The authors argue that courts, agencies professionals need to better address issues of parental alienation and family violence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".