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.
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
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999) Australian Social Trends, Canberra, A.G.P.S
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
Bailey-Harris R. (2001) Contact – Challenging Conventional Wisdom? Child and Family Law Quarterly 13(4):361–373
Bainham A. (1993) Children: The Modern Law. Bristol, Jordan Publishing
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
Berns S. (2000) Folktales of Legality: Family Law in the Procedural Republic. Law and Critique 11/1:1–24
Brien M., Shemlit I. (2003) Working Fathers: Earning and Caring. Manchester, Equal Opportunities Commission
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
Cantwell B. (2004) In Practice – CAFCASS and Private Law Cases. Family Law 34:283–290
Collier R. (1994) The Campaign Against the Child Support Act: ‚Errant Fatherhood’ and ‚Family Men’. Family Law 24:384–387
Collier R. (1995) Masculinity, Law and the Family. London, Routledge
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
Collier R. (2005) Fathers 4 Justice, Law and the New Politics of Fatherhood. Child and Family Law Quarterly 17/4:511–535
Coward R. (1992) Our Treacherous Hearts. London, Faber
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
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
Dewar J. (1998) The Normal Chaos of Family Law. Modern Law Review 61/4:467–485
Dewar J. (2000) Family Law and its Discontents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 14/1:59–85
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
Eekelaar J. (1999) Keeping Us On Message. Child Family and Law Quarterly 11/4:387–400
Eekelaar J. (2002) Contact – Over the Limit? Family Law 32:271–275
Fisher K., McCulloch A., Gershuny J. (1999) British Fathers and their Children. London, Institute of Economic Research
Fortin J. (1998) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law. London, Butterworths
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
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
Herring J. (2004) Family Law. 2nd ed. Harlow, Pearson Education
Herring J. (2005) Why Financial Orders on Divorce Should be Unfair. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 19/2:218–228
H. M. Government (2005) Draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill. London, Cmd 6462
H.M.S.O. (1991) Guidance and Regulations, Volume 1 Court Orders. London, H.M.S.O
Kaganas F., Day Sclater S. (2004) Contact Disputes: Narrative Constructions of ‚Good’ Parents. Feminist Legal Studies 12/1:1–26
Kaganas F., Piper C. (2002) Shared Parenting – A 70% Solution?. Child and Family Law Quarterly 14/4:365–384
Lawler S. (2001) Mothering the Self: A Study of the Mother-Daughter Relationship. London, Routledge
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
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
Mitchell J. (2004) Shared Residence: Panacea or Problem? New Law Journal 154(7151):1642
Mnookin R.H. (1975) Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems 39(3):226–293
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
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
Reece H. (2003) Divorcing Responsibly. Oxford, Hart Publishing
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
Rhoades H., Boyd S. (2004) Reforming Custody Laws: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 18/2:119–146
Scott E.S. (1992) Pluralism, Parental Preference, and Child Custody. California Law Review 80:615–672
Sevenhuijsen S. (1998) Citizenship and the Ethics of Care: Feminist Considerations about Justice, Morality and Politics. London, Routledge
Sheehan G., Smyth B. (2000) Spousal Violence and Post-Separation Financial Outcomes. Australian Journal of Family Law 10:102–118
Sheldon S. (2001) Unmarried Fathers and Parental Responsibility: A Case for Reform? Feminist Legal Studies 9/2:93–118
Smart C. (2002) From Children’s Shoes to Children’s Voices. Family Court Review 40:305–319
Smart C., Neale B. (1997) Arguments Against Virtue – Must Contact be Enforced? Family Law 27:332–336
Smart C., Neale B. (1999) Family Fragments. Cambridge, Polity Press
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
Tronto J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. London, Routledge
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
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
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
Wallbank J. (2001) Challenging Motherhood(s). London, Pearson Education
Wallbank J. (2002) Clause 106 of the Adoption and Children Bill: Legislation for the ‚Good Father’? Legal Studies 22(2):276–296
Warin J., Solomon Y., Lewis C., Langford W. (1999) Fathers, Work and Family Life. London, Family Policy Studies Centre
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
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-007-9056-z