Abstract
This paper explores contact disputes in England and Wales. We discuss the legal background as well as separating parents' experiences of contact disputes. Contact has been high on the agenda since the U.K. Government report, Making Contact Work, (2002) examined various means for facilitating contact between non-resident parents and their children. More recently, the issue has featured prominently in the headlines, largely as a result of the campaigning efforts of fathers' rights groups who complain of injustice and demand changes in the law. The idea that contact is necessary for children's well-being seems to have acquired the status of uncontestable truth. This paper examines the ways in which these ideas about children's interests have become embodied in adominant welfare discourse that is embedded in law and informs policy thinking. Family law has long abhorred parental conflict, particularly that which involves the children. It is frequently assumed that conflict can be reduced if parents could be persuaded to accept the premises of the welfare discourse. In this paper, we consider how parents themselves, in talking about their experiences of contact disputes, makes sense of family law. We found that parents regularly invoke the welfare discourse in their talk, but they interpret it in unexpected ways. Often these interpretations fuel conflict rather than reducing it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee, A Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Question of Parental Contact in Cases Where there is Domestic Violence (London The Stationery Office, 1999).
Andrews, M., Day Sclater, S., Squire, C. & Treacher, A. (eds.), Lines of Narrative: Psychosocial Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2000).
Andrews, M., Day Sclater, S., Squire, C. & Tamboukou, M., “Stories of Narrative Research”, in Qualitative Research in Action, eds. C. Seale, D. Silverman, J. Gubrium & G. Gobo (London: Sage, 2003, forthcoming).
Bailey Harris, R., Davis, G., Barron, J. & Pearce, J., Monitoring Private Law Applications Under the Children Act: Research Report (Bristol: University of Bristol, 1998).
Bailey-Harris, R., “Comment on Yousef v. The Netherlands (Application No 33711/96)”, Family Law 33 (2003), 90.
Bainham, A., “Contact as a Fundamental Right”, Cambridge Law Journal 54), 61–88.
Bruch, C., “Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children-Getting it Wrong in Child Custody Cases”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 14 (2002), 381–400.
Collier, R., Masculinity, Law and the Family (London: Routledge, 1995).
Collier, R., “A Hard Time to be a Father?: Reassessing the Relationship Between Law, Policy and Family Practices”, Journal of Law and Society 28 (2001), 520–545.
Davies, B. & Harré, R., “Positioning: The Discursive Construction of Selves”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1990), 43–63.
Day Sclater, S., Divorce: A Psychosocial Study (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999).
Day Sclater, S. & Piper, C., “Remoralising the Family? Family Policy, Family Law and Youth Justice”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 12 (2000), 135–151.
Day Sclater, S. & Piper, C., “Social Exclusion and the Welfare of the Child”, Journal of Law and Society 28 (2001), 409–429.
Day Sclater, S. & Yates, C., “The Psycho-Politics of Post-Divorce Parenting”, in What is a Parent? A Socio-Legal Analysis, eds. A. Bainham, S. Day Sclater & M. Richards (Oxford: Hart, 1999), 271–293.
Dobash, R.E, Dobash, R.P., Cavanagh, K. & Lewis, R., Changing Violent Men (London: Sage, 2000).
Herring, J., “The Human Rights Act and theWelfare Principle in Family Law-Conflicting or Complementary?” Child and Family Law Quarterly 11 (1999), 223–235.
Hobbs, T., “Parental Alienation Syndrome and the U.K. Family Courts: The Dilemma”, Family Law 32 (2002), 381–387.
Geldof, B., “The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name: A Sometimes Coherent Rant”, in Children and their Families: Contact, Rights and Welfare, eds. A. Bainham, B. Lindley, M. Richards & L. Trinder (Oxford: Hart, 2003), 171–200.
Kaganas, F., “Responsible or Feckless Fathers? Re S. (Parental Responsibility)”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 8 (1996), 165–173.
Kaganas, F., “Contact, Conflict and Risk”, in Undercurrents of Divorce, eds. S. Day Sclater & C. Piper(Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1999), 99–120.
Kaganas, F., “Re L. (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re V. (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re M. (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re H. (Contact: Domestic Violence). Contact and Domestic Violence”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 12 (2000), 311–324.
Kaganas, F. & Day Sclater, S., “Contact and Domestic Violence: The Winds of Change?”, Family Law 30 (2000), 630–636.
Kaganas, F. & Piper, C., “Grandparents and Contact: Rights v. Welfare Revisited”, International J. of Law, Policy and the Family 15 (2001), 250–275.
King, M. & Piper, C., How the Law Thinks about Children (2nd ed) (Aldershot: Arena, 1995).
Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law, Children Act Sub-Committee Consultation Paper on Making Contact Work: The Facilitation of Arrangements For Contact Between Children and their Non-Residential Parents and the Enforcement of Court Orders For Contact (The Stationery Office: London, 2001).
Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee, 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: The Stationery Office, 2002).
Masson, J., “Parental Alienation Syndrome”, Family Law 32 (2002), 568.
Mayes, G.M., Wilson. G.B., MacDonald, R.A. & Gillies, J.B., “Evaluation of an Information Programme for Divorced or Separated Parents”, Child and Family Law Quarterly 15 (2003), 85–105.
Neale, B. & Smart, C., “Good and Bad Lawyers? Struggling in the Shadow of the Law”, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 19 (1997), 377–402.
Newsline Extra, “Making Contact”, Family Law 33 (2003), 275.
Roberts, M., Mediation in Family Disputes: Principles of Practice (Aldershot: Arena, 1997).
Reece, J., “The Paramountcy Principle: Consensus or Construct?” Current Legal Problems 49 (1996), 267–304.
Rodgers, B. & Pryor, J., Divorce and Separation: The Outcomes for Children (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998).
Rustin, M., “Reflections on the Biographical Turn in Social Science”, in The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Science, eds. P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat & T. Wengraf (London: Routledge, 2000), 33–52.
Smart, C., “The Legal and Moral Ordering of Child Custody”, Journal of Law and Society 18 (1991) 485–500.
Sturge, C. & Glaser, D., “Contact and Domestic Violence-The Experts' Court Report”, Family Law 30 (2000), 615–629.
Swindells, H. Kushner, M., Neaves, A. & Skilbeck, R., Family Law and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Bristol: Family Law, 1999).
Williams, C., “Parental Alienation Syndrome”, Family Law 32 (2002), 410–411.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaganas, F., Day Sclater, S. Contact Disputes: Narrative Constructions of `Good' Parents. Feminist Legal Studies 12, 1–27 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FEST.0000026077.03989.70
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FEST.0000026077.03989.70