Bringing Canada's Divorce Act into the New Millenium: Enacting a Child-Focused Parenting Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's Divorce Act relies heavily on the concepts of custody and access to govern post-separation parenting, concepts that have proprietary connotations with parental winners and losers. The 1985 Act fails to adequately reflect current social values, family arrangements or social science research, and it does not mention either the views of the child or domestic violence. The author responds to the Act's shortcomings by proposing comprehensive reform to its post-separation parenting provisions. Building on provincial and international reforms, the author recommends a principled articulation of the best interests of the child that would provide judges, family lawyers, mediators and parents with the guidance needed to develop appropriate parenting plans. This principled articulation would support co-parenting, without establishing a presumption ofequal parenting time. The author's approach goes beyond prior parliamentary attempts to enact appropriate legislation by balancing the importance of maintaining parent-child relationships with domestic violence concerns. Further, the author advocates for the inclusion of relocation provisions, which require notice of planned relocation and structured decision making about whether relocation is in the best interests of the child.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".