Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Getting tough on mothers: regulating contact and residence

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article critically examines the relationship between shared residence and contact after the breakdown of the parents’ relationship. It examines the background to the government’s main emphasis on methods of monitoring, facilitating and enforcing contact as the most efficacious method of proceeding in respect of the law reform agenda, focussing particularly on the potential impact of punitive enforcement measures on primary carers, usually mothers. The article sets the discussion within its wider cultural context in respect of fathers’ rights claims that family law currently favours mothers, and shows how recent legal developments constitute part of a package to manage post-separation relationships between parent and children. It also examines some of the emerging case law to show how the judiciary is using shared residence orders and transfer of residence to deal with protracted and very difficult contact disputes, and in ways which were not anticipated when shared residence orders were first introduced. Drawing on feminist legal commentaries the argument will be made that the use of transfer of residence and shared residence orders in these disputes is extremely worrying, especially in light of the growing body of empirical research which heralds caution. The article will conclude by suggesting that far from favouring mothers, both the law reforms and the case law effectively construct mothers as integral to the problem of contact. They are treated as the site of and solution to the ‚problem’ of contact, and the means of dealing with the problem is by increasingly punitive measures which are inappropriate in a family law context. At the same time non-residential fathers who do not uphold contact escape legal sanctions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amato P.R., Gilbreth J.G. (1999) Nonresident Fathers and Children’s Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:557–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999) Australian Social Trends, Canberra, A.G.P.S

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey-Harris R. (1999) From Utility to Rights? The Presumption of Contact in Practice. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 13(2):111–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey-Harris R. (2001) Contact – Challenging Conventional Wisdom? Child and Family Law Quarterly 13(4):361–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainham A. (1993) Children: The Modern Law. Bristol, Jordan Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainham A. (2003) Contact as a Right and Obligation. In: A. Bainham, S. Day Sclater, M. Richards, L. Trinder (eds) Children & Their Families: Contact, Rights & Welfare, Oxford, Hart Publishing, pp 61–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Berns S. (2000) Folktales of Legality: Family Law in the Procedural Republic. Law and Critique 11/1:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brien M., Shemlit I. (2003) Working Fathers: Earning and Caring. Manchester, Equal Opportunities Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown T., Frederico M., Hewitt L., Sheehan R. (1998) Violence in Families: The Management of Child Abuse Allegations in Custody and Access Disputes before the Family Court of Australia. Melbourne and Canberra, The Family Violence and Family Court Research Program, Monash University and the Australian Catholic University

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell B. (2004) In Practice – CAFCASS and Private Law Cases. Family Law 34:283–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier R. (1994) The Campaign Against the Child Support Act: ‚Errant Fatherhood’ and ‚Family Men’. Family Law 24:384–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier R. (1995) Masculinity, Law and the Family. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier R. (2001) A Hard Time to Be a Father?: Reassessing the Relationship Between Law, Policy, and Family (Practices). Journal of Law and Society 28/4:520–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier R. (2005) Fathers 4 Justice, Law and the New Politics of Fatherhood. Child and Family Law Quarterly 17/4:511–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Coward R. (1992) Our Treacherous Hearts. London, Faber

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox C.E., Kotch J.B., Everson M.D. (2003) A Longitudinal Study of Modifying Influences in the Relationship Between Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence 18:5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day Sclater, S., & Kaganas, F. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Socio-Legal Studies Association (2000)

  • Day Sclater S., Kaganas F. (2003) Contact: Mothers, Welfare and Rights. In: A. Bainham, S. Day Sclater, M. Richards, L. Trinder (eds) Children & Their Families: Contact, Rights & Welfare. Oxford, Hart Publishing, pp 155–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar J. (1998) The Normal Chaos of Family Law. Modern Law Review 61/4:467–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar J. (2000) Family Law and its Discontents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 14/1:59–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Constitutional Affairs, Department of Education, Department of Trade and Industry, Parental Separation: Children’s Needs and Parents’ Responsibilities (London: H.M.S.O., 2004)

  • Diduck A., Kaganas F. (1999) Family Law, Gender and the State. Oxford, Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar J. (1999) Keeping Us On Message. Child Family and Law Quarterly 11/4:387–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar J. (2002) Contact – Over the Limit? Family Law 32:271–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher K., McCulloch A., Gershuny J. (1999) British Fathers and their Children. London, Institute of Economic Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin J. (1998) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law. London, Butterworths

    Google Scholar 

  • Geldof B. (2003) The Real Love that Dare Not Speak is Name. In: A. Bainham, S. Day Sclater, M. Richards, L. Trinder (eds) Children & Their Families: Contact, Rights & Welfare. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 171–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J. (1999) The Human Rights Act and the Welfare Principle in Family Law – Conflicting or Complementary? Child and Family Law Quarterly 11/3:223–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J. (2004) Family Law. 2nd ed. Harlow, Pearson Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring J. (2005) Why Financial Orders on Divorce Should be Unfair. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19/2:218–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. M. Government (2005) Draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill. London, Cmd 6462

    Google Scholar 

  • H.M.S.O. (1991) Guidance and Regulations, Volume 1 Court Orders. London, H.M.S.O

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaganas F., Day Sclater S. (2004) Contact Disputes: Narrative Constructions of ‚Good’ Parents. Feminist Legal Studies 12/1:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaganas F., Piper C. (2002) Shared Parenting – A 70% Solution?. Child and Family Law Quarterly 14/4:365–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler S. (2001) Mothering the Self: A Study of the Mother-Daughter Relationship. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Chancellor’s Department (now Department for Constitutional Affairs), Making Contact Work: A Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Facilitation of Arrangements for Contact Between Children and Their Non-Residential Parents and the Enforcement of Court Orders for Contact (London: L.C.D., 2002)

  • Macooby E., Mnookin R. (1992) Dividing the Child. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall Smith A. (1990) Is Anything Left of Parental Rights? In: A. McCall Smith, A. Sutherland (eds) Family Rights. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell J. (2004) Shared Residence: Panacea or Problem? New Law Journal 154(7151):1642

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin R.H. (1975) Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems 39(3):226–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Statistics, Jobs About the House at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=288 (2003)

  • National Statistics, U.K. Time Use Survey at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/timeuse/summary_results/housework_work.asp (2000)

  • Neale B., Flowerdew J., Smart C. (2003) Drifting Towards Shared Residence? Family Law 33:904–908

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos X. (2003) Domestic Work Time and Gender Differentials in Great Britain 1992–1998: Facts, Value Judgements and Subjective Fairness Perceptions. London, Institute for Economic Research

    Google Scholar 

  • Reece H. (2003) Divorcing Responsibly. Oxford, Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades H. (2002) The ‚No Contact Mother’: Reconstructions of Motherhood in the Era of the ‚New Father’. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 16/1:71–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades H., Boyd S. (2004) Reforming Custody Laws: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 18/2:119–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott E.S. (1992) Pluralism, Parental Preference, and Child Custody. California Law Review 80:615–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevenhuijsen S. (1998) Citizenship and the Ethics of Care: Feminist Considerations about Justice, Morality and Politics. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan G., Smyth B. (2000) Spousal Violence and Post-Separation Financial Outcomes. Australian Journal of Family Law 10:102–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon S. (2001) Unmarried Fathers and Parental Responsibility: A Case for Reform? Feminist Legal Studies 9/2:93–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart C. (2002) From Children’s Shoes to Children’s Voices. Family Court Review 40:305–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart C., Neale B. (1997) Arguments Against Virtue – Must Contact be Enforced? Family Law 27:332–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart C., Neale B. (1999) Family Fragments. Cambridge, Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Thery I. (1986) ‚The Interests of the Child’ and the Regulation of the Post-Divorce Family. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 14(1):341–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Krieken R. (2005) The ‚Best Interests of the Child’ and Parental Separation: On the ‚Civilising of Parents’. Modern Law Review 68(1):25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank J. (1997) The Campaign for Change of the Child Support Act 1991: Reconstituting the ‚Absent’ Father. Social and Legal Studies 6(2):191–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank J. (1998) Castigating Mothers: the Judicial Response to Willful Women in Cases Concerning Contact. The Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 20(4):357–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank J. (2001) Challenging Motherhood(s). London, Pearson Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank J. (2002) Clause 106 of the Adoption and Children Bill: Legislation for the ‚Good Father’? Legal Studies 22(2):276–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warin J., Solomon Y., Lewis C., Langford W. (1999) Fathers, Work and Family Life. London, Family Policy Studies Centre

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhead M. (1990) Psychology and the Cultural Construction of Children’s Needs. In: A. James, A. Prout (eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. London, Falmer Press, pp 63–84

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my warmest thanks to Jonathan Herring, John Eekelaar, Rosemary Hunter and the anonymous referees of Feminist Legal Studies for their most generous input to this article. All errors are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Wallbank.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallbank, J. Getting tough on mothers: regulating contact and residence. Feminist Legal Stud 15, 189–222 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-007-9056-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-007-9056-z

Keywords

Navigation