Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 147–167 | Cite as

Gender and Evidence in Family Law Reform: A Case Study of Quantification and Anecdote in Framing and Legitimising the ‘Problems’ with Child Support in Australia

  • Kay Cook
  • Kristin Natalier
Article

Abstract

Despite claims of ‘evidence based policy’, the place of empirical evidence in family law reform is ambiguous. There is ongoing socio-legal analysis of the differential value and uses of quantitative data and anecdote in detailing women’s experiences and advocating for change. In this paper, we engage with these issues through a focus on how data were constructed in a key government report, Every Picture Tells a Story, which was used to officially define the problem and outline recommendations in the controversial 2006-08 reform of the Australian Child Support Scheme. Our discussion focuses on two questions: what legitimacy is accorded to different kinds of evidence in family law reform processes?; and, how is this legitimacy gendered? We applied feminist critical discourse analysis to the type, source and claims of the data included in the child support chapter of the report. Our findings indicate that both quantitative data and anecdote were used to privilege fathers’ financial interests and autonomy; in contrast, women’s voices and interests were marginalised. Thus, we argue the legitimacy of data is ascribed through its relationship to the gendered definition of the ‘problems’ of child support, rather than the type of data per se.

Keywords

Child support Evidence based policy Gender Family law Law reform Socio-legal analysis 

References

  1. Azzopardi, Corry. 2015. The discursive construction of gendered attributions of blame for child sexual abuse: A feminist critical discourse analysis of maternal failure to protect in child welfare policy and practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michal Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19: 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, Stephen J. 1993. What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse 13: 10–17.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, Susan B. 2001. Backlash and the construction of legal knowledge: The case of child custody law. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 20: 141–165.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, Susan B., and Claire Young. 2002. Who influences family law reform? Discourses on motherhood and fatherhood in legislative reform debates in Canada. Studies in Law, Politics and Society 26: 43–75.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, Michelle. 2015. What can qualitative research contribute to work and family policy? Journal of Family Studies 21: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brough, Mal. 2007. Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007—Second Reading Speech. Commonwealth House of Representatives Hansard, 13 September 2007. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-09-13%2F0036%22. Accessed 11 February 2016.
  8. Cook, Kay, and Kristin Natalier. 2013. The gendered framing of Australia’s child support reforms. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 27: 28–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, Kay, and Kristin Natalier. 2014. Selective hearing: The gendered construction and reception of inquiry evidence. Critical Social Policy 34: 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, Kay, Hayley McKenzie, Kristin Natalier, and Lisa Young. 2015. Institutional processes and the production of gender inequalities: The case of Australian child support research and administration. Critical Social Policy 35: 512–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delgado, Richard. 1995. Story-telling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review 87: 2411–2441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewar, John. 2000. Family law and its discontents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 14: 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diduck, Alison. 1995. The unmodified family: The Child Support Act and the construction of legal subjects. Journal of Law and Society 22: 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Espeland, Wendy N., and Mitchell L. Stevens. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Espeland, Wendy N., and Mitchell L. Stevens. 2008. A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology 49: 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Espeland, Wendy N., and Berit I. Vannebo. 2007. Accountability, quantification, and law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewick, Patricia, and Susan Sibley. 1995. Subversive stories and hegemonic tales: Toward a sociology of narrative. Law and Society Review 29: 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fairclough, Norman. 2010. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehlberg, Belinda, and Mavis Maclean. 2009. Child support policy in Australia and the United Kingdom: Changing priorities but a similar tough deal for children? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 23: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehlberg, Belinda, Kaspiew Rae, Jenni Millbank, Fiona Kelly, and Juliet Behrens. 2015. Australian family law: The contemporary context. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fineman, Martha L., and Anne, Opie. 1987. The uses of social science data in legal policy making: Custody determinations at divorce. Wisconsin Law Review 107–158.Google Scholar
  23. Flood, Michael. 2010. “Fathers’ rights” and the defense of paternal authority in Australia. Violence Against Women 16: 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fogarty, Kathryn, and Martha Augoustinos. 2008. Feckless fathers and monopolizing mothers: Motive, identity, and fundamental truths in the Australian public inquiry into child custody. British Journal of Social Psychology 47: 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foucault, Michel. 1977. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  26. Gale, Trevor. 1999. Policy trajectories: Treading the discursive path of policy analysis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 20: 393–407.Google Scholar
  27. Graycar, Reg. 2000. Law reform by frozen chook: Family law reform for the new millennium? Melbourne University Law Review 24: 737–755.Google Scholar
  28. Graycar, Reg. 2008. Frozen chooks revisited: The challenge of changing law/s. In Changing law: Rights, regulation and reconciliation, ed. Rosemary Hunter, and Mary Keyes, 49–76. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Graycar, Reg. 2012. Family law reform in Australia, or frozen chooks revisited again? Theoretical Inquiries in Law 13: 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graycar, Reg, and Jenny Morgan. 1999. A quarter century of feminism in law. Back to the future. Alternative Law Journal 24: 117–159.Google Scholar
  31. Graycar, Reg, and Jenny Morgan. 2005. Law reform: What’s in it for women? Windsor Yearbook on Access to Justice 23: 393–419.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, Margaret. 2002. Australia’s family law act: The first 25 years. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 16: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart, Amanda S., and Dale Bagshaw. 2008. The idealised post-separation family in Australian family law: A dangerous paradigm in cases of domestic violence. Journal of Family Studies 14: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. 2003. Every picture tells a story: Report on the Inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  35. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affair. 2015. From conflict to cooperation: Inquiry into the child support program. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  36. Kaye, Miranda, and Julia Tolmie. 1998a. Discoursing dads: The rhetorical devices of fathers’ rights groups. Melbourne University Law Review 22: 162–194.Google Scholar
  37. Kaye, Miranda, and Julia Tolmie. 1998b. Fathers’ rights groups in Australia and their engagement with issues in family law. Australian Journal of Family Law 12: 19–67.Google Scholar
  38. Kershaw, Phillip. 2004. ‘Choice’ discourse in BC child care: Distancing policy from research. Canadian Journal of Political Science 37: 927–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazar, Michelle M. 2007. Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies 4: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCormack, Karen. 2005. Stratified reproduction and poor women’s resistance. Gender and Society 19: 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McLachlan, Rosalie, Geoff Gilfillan, and Jenny Gordon. 2013. Deep and persistent disadvantage in Australia. Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
  42. Melville, Angela, and Rosemary Hunter. 2001. ‘As everybody knows’: Countering myths of gender bias in family law. Griffith Law Review 1: 124–136.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, Peter. 1994. Accounting and objectivity: The invention of calculating selves and calculable spaces. In Rethinking objectivity, ed. Allan Megill, 1–39. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Millward, Christine, and Belinda Fehlberg. 2013. Recognising the costs of contact: Infrastructure costs, ‘regular care’ and Australia’s new child support formula. Australian Journal of Family Law 27: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support. 2005. In the best interests of children—reforming the child support scheme. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  46. Minow, Martha. 1990. Words and the door to the land of change: Law, language and family violence. Vanderbilt Law Review 43: 1665–1699.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy, Jane. 1993. Lawyering for social change: The power of the narrative in domestic violence law reform. Hofstra Law Review 21: 1243–1293.Google Scholar
  48. Neylan, Julian. 2008. Social policy and the authority of evidence. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67: 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips, Lisa. 1996. Discourse deficits: A feminist perspective on the power of technical knowledge in fiscal law and policy. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 11: 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Proudfoot, Fiona, and Daphne Habibis. 2015. Separate worlds: A discourse analysis of mainstream and Aboriginal populist media accounts of the Northern Territory Emergency Response in 2007. Journal of Sociology 51: 170–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rathus, Zoe. 2014. The role of social science in Australian family law: Collaborator, usurper or infiltrator? Family Court Review 52: 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rhoades, Helen, and Susan B. Boyd. 2004. Reforming custody laws: A comparative study. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 18: 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scutt, Jocelynne. 1992. The incredible woman: A recurring character in criminal law. Women’s Studies International Forum 15: 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Skinner, Christine, and Jacqueline Davidson. 2009. Recent trends in child maintenance schemes in 14 countries. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 23: 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smart, Carol. 1986. Feminism and law: Some problems of analysis and strategy. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 14: 109–123.Google Scholar
  56. Smyth, Bruce, and Paul Henman. 2010. The distributional and financial impacts of the new Australian Child Support Scheme: A ‘before and day-after reform’ comparison of assessed liability. Journal of Family Studies 16: 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Summerfield, Tracey, Lisa Young, Jade Harman, and Paul Flatau. 2010. Child support and welfare to work reforms: The economic consequences for single parent families. Family Matters 84: 68–78.Google Scholar
  58. Wodak, Ruth. 2002. Aspects of critical discourse analysis. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 36: 5–31.Google Scholar
  59. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2015. Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In Methods of critical discourse studies, ed. Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 2–22. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social & Policy StudiesFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations