Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 121–140 | Cite as

State Facilitated Economic Abuse: A Structural Analysis of Men Deliberately Withholding Child Support

  • Kristin NatalierEmail author
Article

Abstract

Economic abuse is well established as a widespread and damaging element of intimate partner violence. However research largely addresses cohabiting couples, with few detailed explorations of women’s longer-term experiences after separation. Further, researchers have not developed a gendered analysis of child support related economic abuse. Such an analysis requires understanding gender as a framework that organises institutions and relationships in ways that build and reproduce hierarchical relations of difference. In this paper, I present data from in-depth interviews with 37 single mothers to pursue a structural analysis of how men’s deliberate withholding of child support (termed child maintenance in some countries) can be a form of economic abuse that is facilitated through gendered state processes and institutions that order child support transfers. I argue that masculine financial discretion structures policy and organizational practices in ways that legitimate men’s financial agency at the expense of women’s financial autonomy. On-going compliance issues are not the result of a failure of Australia’s Child Support Program, but suggest that the state’s role can be one of regulation, not prevention, of economic abuse. Thus, Australia’s Child Support Program normalises the potential for post-separation economic abuse.

Keywords

Economic abuse Financial abuse Post-separation violence Domestic violence Child support Child maintenance Divorce 

References

  1. Adams, Adrienne E., Cris M. Sullivan, Deborah Bybee, and Megan R. Greeson. 2008. Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women 14: 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Kristin L. 2005. Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles 52: 853–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, Kristin L. 2007. Who gets out? Gender as structure and the dissolution of violent heterosexual relationships. Gender & Society 21: 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, Kristin L. 2009. Gendering coercive control. Violence Against Women 15: 1444–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, Jonathan, Carol Stimson, Christine Skinner, and Julie Williams. 1999. Absent fathers?. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bumiller, Kristin. 2010. The nexus of domestic violence reform and social science: From instrument of social change to institutionalized surveillance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6: 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownridge, Douglas A., Ko Ling Chan, Diane Hiebert-Murphy, Janice Ristock, Agnes Tiwari, Wing-Cheong Leung, and Susy C. Santos. 2008. The elevated risk for non-lethal post-separation violence in Canada: A comparison of separated, divorced, and married women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23: 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Child Support Agency. 2010. Facts and figures 2008–09. Belconnen: Child Support Agency.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, Kay. 2013. Child support compliance and tax return non-filing: A feminist analysis. Australian Review of Public Affairs 11: 43–64.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, Kay, Hayley McKenzie, and Kristin Natalier. 2015a. Mothers’ experiences of child support: Qualitative research and opportunities for policy insight. Journal of Family Studies 21: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, Kay, Hayley McKenzie, Kristin Natalier, and Lisa Young. 2015b. 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
  12. 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
  13. Cook, Kay, and Kristin Natalier. 2014. Selective hearing: The gendered construction and reception of Inquiry evidence. Critical Social Policy 34: 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Commonwealth of Australia. 2014. Department of Social Services & Department of Human Services: Joint submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. Inquiry into the Child Support Program. Canberra: DSS and DHS.Google Scholar
  15. Cozzolino, Elizabeth, and Christine L. Williams. 2017. Child support queens and disappointing dads: Gender and child support compliance. Social Currents 4: 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department of Human Services. 2017. Overdue child support payments. https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/overdue-child-support-payments. Accessed 3 Dec 17.
  17. Department of Social Services. 2018a. Family assistance guide: 3.1.5.70 Exemptions from the maintenance action test. Australian Government. http://guides.dss.gov.au/family-assistance-guide/3/1/5/70. Accessed 3 Dec 17.
  18. Department of Social Services. 2018b. Child support guide. http://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide/2/4. Accessed 3 Dec 17.
  19. de Vaus, David, Matthew Gray, Qu Lixia, and David Stanton. 2014. The economic consequences of divorce in Australia. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 28: 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Edin, Kathryn, and Timothy J. Nelson. 2013. Doing the best I can: Fatherhood in the inner city. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Edin, Kathryn. 1995. Single mothers and child support: The possibilities and limits of child support policy. Children and Youth Services Review 17: 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elizabeth, Vivienne. 2017. Custody stalking: A mechanism of coercively controlling mothers following separation. Feminist Legal Studies 25: 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elizabeth, Vivienne. 2015. From domestic violence to coercive control: Towards the recognition of oppressive intimacy in the family court. New Zealand Sociology 30: 26–43.Google Scholar
  25. Elizabeth, Vivienne, Nicola Gavey, and Julia Tolmie. 2012. The gendered dynamics of power in disputes over the post-separation care of children. Violence Against Women 18: 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fehlberg, Belinda, Rae Kaspiew, Jenni Millbank, Fiona Kelly, and Juliet Behrens. 2014. Australian family law: The contemporary context. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fehlberg, Belinda, and Mavis Mclean. 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
  28. Ferraro, Kathleen J. 1996. The dance of dependency: A genealogy of domestic violence discourse. Hypatia 11: 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding, Sandra. 2009. Standpoint theories: Productively controversial. Hypatia 24: 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris, Deborah A. 2015. “You just have to look at it as a gift”: Low-income single mothers’ experiences of the child support system. Journal of Poverty 19: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, Brittany E. 2012. Abusive men’s indirect control of their partner during the process of separation. Journal of Family Violence 27: 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hearn, Jeff. 1998. The violences of men: How men talk about and how agencies respond to men’s violence to women. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Humphreys, Cathy, and Ravi K. Thiara. 2003. Neither justice nor protection: Women’s experiences of post-separation violence. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 25: 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jakobsen, Hilde. 2014. What’s gendered about gender-based violence? An empirically grounded theoretical exploration from Tanzania. Gender & Society 28: 537–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaffe, Peter G., Claire V. Crooks, and Samantha E. Poisson. 2003. Common misconceptions in addressing domestic violence in child custody disputes. Juvenile & Family Court Journal 54: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laakso, Janice H., and Denise J. Drevdahl. 2006. Women, abuse, and the welfare bureaucracy. Affilia 21: 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCormack, Karen. 2005. Stratified reproduction and poor women’s resistance. Gender & Society 19: 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKenzie, Hayley, and Kay Cook. 2015. “It should be a big responsibility”: Separated low-income mothers’ evaluation of child support arrangements and the conduct of fathers. Australian Journal of Family Law 29: 135–156.Google Scholar
  39. McMahon, Marylin, and Paul McGorrery. 2016. Emotional abuse, intimidation and economic abuse in the context of family violence: The Tasmanian experience. University of Tasmania Law Review 35: 1–22.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, Susan L., and Nicole L. Smolter. 2011. “Paper abuse”: When all else fails, batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women 17: 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy, John, Suellen Murray, Jenny Chalmers, Sonia Martin, and Greg Marston. 2011. Half a citizen: Life on welfare in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  42. Natalier, Kristin. 2012a. Means and ends. Why child support money is not used to meet housing costs. Housing Studies 27: 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Natalier, Kristin. 2012b. Descriptions of loss and resilience among fathers paying child support. Journal of Family Studies 18: 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Natalier, Kristin. 2017. Micro-aggressions, single mothers and interactions with government workers: The case of Australia’s child support bureaucracy. Journal of Sociology 53: 622–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Natalier, Kristin, Kay Cook, and Torna Pitman. 2016. Payee mothers’ interactions with the Department of Human Services-Child Support. Family Matters 97: 30–40.Google Scholar
  46. Natalier, Kristin, and Belinda Hewitt. 2010. “It’s not just about the money”: Non-resident fathers’ perspectives on paying child support. Sociology 44: 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Natalier, Kristin, and Belinda Hewitt. 2014. Separated parents reproducing and undoing gender through defining legitimate uses of child support. Gender & Society 28: 904–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paradies, Yin, and Joan Cunningham. 2009. Experiences of racism among urban indigenous Australians: Findings from the DRUID study. Ethnic and Racial Studies 32: 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patrick, Rebecca, Kay Cook, and Ann Taket. 2007. Multiple barriers to obtaining child support: Experiences of women leaving violent partners. Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy 45: 21–29.Google Scholar
  50. Patrick, Rebecca, Kay Cook, and Hayley McKenzie. 2008. Domestic violence and the exemption from seeking child support: Providing safety or legitimizing ongoing poverty and fear? Social Policy & Administration 42: 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Postmus, Judy L., Sara-Beth Plummer, N. Sarah McMahon, Shaanta Murshid, and Mi Sung Kim. 2012. Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27: 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Qu, Lixia, Ruth Weston, Lawrie Moloney, Rae Kaspiew, and Jessie Dunstan. 2014. Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
  53. Reilly, Lyndon, and Susan Rees. 2018. Fatherhood in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities: An examination of barriers and opportunities to strengthen the male parenting role. American Journal of Men’s Health 12: 420–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ridge, Tess. 2017. The ‘go-between’: Low-income children negotiating relationships of money and care with their separated parents. Children and Society 31: 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Shelley J. Correll. 2004. Unpacking the gender system. Gender & Society 18: 510–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Risman, Barbara J. 1999. Gender vertigo. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Risman, Barbara J. 2004. Gender as a social structure. Gender & Society 18: 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanders, Cynthia K. 2015. Economic abuse in the lives of women abused by an intimate partner: A qualitative study. Violence Against Women 21: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. 2013. Additional budget estimates, 14 February 2013. Answers to questions on notice: Child Support Agency. http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/clac_ctte/estimates/add_1213/DHS/Answers/027.ashx. Accessed 2 Dec 2014.
  60. Skinner, Christine, Kay Cook, and Sarah Sinclair. 2017. The potential of child support to reduce lone mother poverty: Comparing population survey data in Australia and the UK. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 25: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Smart, Carol, and Bren Neale. 1999. Family fragments?. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Smyth, Bruce, Maria Vnuk, Bryan Rodgers, and Vu Son. 2014. Can child support compliance be improved by the introduction of a “fairer” child support formula and more rigorous enforcement? The recent Australian experience. Journal of Family Studies 20: 204–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stark, Evan. 2007. Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Stark, Evan. 2009. Rethinking coercive control. Violence Against Women 15: 1509–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stylianou, Amanda Mathisen, Judy L. Postmus, and Sarah McMahon. 2013. Measuring abusive behaviors: Is economic abuse a unique form of abuse? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28: 3186–3204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Toews, Michelle L., and Autumn M. Bermea. 2017. “I was naive in thinking, ‘I divorced this man, he is out of my life’”: A qualitative exploration of post-separation power and control tactics experienced by women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 32: 2166–2189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Varcoe, Colleen, and Lori G. Irwin. 2004. “If I killed you, I’d get the kids”: Women’s survival and protection work with child custody and access in the context of woman abuse. Qualitative Sociology 27: 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walter, Maggie, Belinda Hewitt, Kristin Natalier, Maryanne Wulff, and Margaret Reynolds. 2010. The implications of child support for housing after relationship dissolution. Journal of Family Studies 16: 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wendt, Sarah, Dale Bagshaw, Lana Zannettino, and Valerie Adams. 2015. Financial abuse of older people: A case study. International Social Work 58: 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (Sociology)Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations