From parental alienation to coercive control: perspectives from canadian courts and implications for brazilian law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of the legitimacy crisis surrounding Brazil’s Parental Alienation Law (Law No. 12,318/2010), the subject of intense debates regarding its potential revocation based on claims that it enables the instrumentalization of family violence, this study examines the evolution of the Canadian legal framework, which has shifted from the concept of parental alienation toward a broader classification of family violence and coercive control. The objective is to identify insights that may contribute to strengthening child and adolescent protection mechanisms in Brazil. To this end, the article undertakes a comparative, documentary, and literature-based analysis of the Civil Law system (Brazil) and the Common Law system (Canada), with particular attention to statutory reforms, case law, and reports issued by the Canadian Department of Justice in 2005 and 2023. The findings indicate that the core distinction does not lie in the text of the law itself but in the systemic maturity of the Canadian approach, which, following the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act, prioritizes child safety over parental contact and recognizes alienating behaviour as a form of coercive control. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the Brazilian challenge is not the absence of adequate legislation but rather the underuse of existing legal mechanisms. Addressing this gap requires the advancement of judicial and forensic practices to ensure the technically rigorous and systemically informed application of the law, in line with the Canadian model.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".