The Significance and Effectiveness of Children’s Participation in Judicial Child Protection Procedures in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Access to justice has many facets, with one of them involving giving the child an opportunity to voice their opinion and hearing those opinions. This is particularly important in child protection proceedings which can have a major impact on the lives of children whose security and development are at risk. In the province of Quebec, Canada, the law on child protection guarantees the right for the child to be heard. However, how the child should be heard lacks clarity. The only specific provisions in the law that apply to judicial proceedings concern the child’s right to be represented by counsel and child testimony in court. While the law focuses on voluntary measures that are decided in collaboration with the parents, the majority of child protection cases end up in court, where an adversarial procedure is followed. Since Children’s right to be heard has been recognized as a general principle applying to all Children’s rights, it is crucial to understand how this right is implemented in the context of child protection, including how children are really heard in judicial proceedings, and how child representation and testimony work in practice. The analysis in this contribution is based on empirical research conducted in four judicial districts in Quebec between 2017 and 2020. Its aim was to understand when and how children participate in judicial court proceedings, and how professionals (judges and caseworkers) and children, who have had an experience in youth court, perceive Children’s participation in judicial proceedings and their right to be heard. Based on interviews conducted with 12 judges, 17 caseworkers, and 10 children, as well as an analysis of the law and observation of practice, this contribution first examines the significance and importance given to Children’s participation in judicial proceedings as represented in the law and as perceived by the research participants. It then critically examines the effectiveness of current practice, and finally suggests measures to improve practice so that it may be more respectful of children and their rights.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".