Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36798515›Full record

ArticleJournal of family issues2023

All in the (Definition of) Family: Transnational Parent-Child Relationships, Rights to Family Life, and Canadian Immigration Law.

Melissa Redmond, Beth Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family issues, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Melissa RedmondCarleton School of Social Work, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6442-2892
Beth MartinCarleton School of Social Work, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6770-8121

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International human rights conventions, Canadian law and academic research all support the right to family life. Internationally and domestically, multiple definitions of family are recognized, acknowledging that long-term interpersonal commitments can be based on biological relationships as well as co-residential, legal, and emotional ties. Yet, the Canadian immigration system's limited and exclusionary understanding of parent-child relationships complicates migrant family reunification. Drawing on qualitative interview and survey data from separated families and key informants who support them, we analyze national status and class assumptions embedded in Canadian immigration standards. We argue that Canadian immigration policies disproportionately deny the right to family life to transnational Canadians and their children who hail from the Global South and/or who are socio-economically disadvantaged. Immigration policies neither recognize the globally accepted "best interests of the child" welfare standard nor the human right to family life. We offer suggestions for addressing these inequities in practice and policy.

Indexed as

Canadadefinition of familyhuman rightsimmigration/migrationinternational adoptionparent–child relations

Identifiers

PMID36798515
PMCPMC9923200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.