Appropriate parenting arrangements in cases of intimate partner violence and coercive control: From research and legislative reform to changes in practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Family violence and coercive control are increasingly being recognized in legislation and practice as critical factors to consider in determining children's best interests in making appropriate post‐separation parenting arrangements. Professional practices have also become more trauma and violence‐informed and better able to recognize and respond to the impact of violence on survivors and their children. Assessing the validity and context of family violence allegations is critical for making appropriate post‐separation parenting arrangements. In cases where there are family violence concerns, court responses need to take account of the potential harm that perpetrators present to the children and the other parent. Findings of family violence should lead to a differentiated approach to parenting arrangements depending on the severity and history of family violence and coercive control, the timing of the disclosures, and the resources available to address safety for the adult victim and children. Arrangements may vary according to the potential need for restrictive parenting time, and may include supervised exchanges, supervised parenting, or no parenting time. This article reviews literature and legal developments to proposes a framework for better understanding and responding to continuing post‐separation effects of domestic violence and coercive control.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".