“And all Hell Broke Loose”: How Child Maintenance Regulations Contribute to Re-actualizing Intimate Partner Violence between Separated Parents in Sweden

Abstract

This study examines recent changes in Swedish regulations for child maintenance in relation to post-separation families with experiences of either intimate partner violence (IPV) or conflict. The reform limited the possibility to rely on the state for maintenance in cases of cooperation difficulties. For IPV cases, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSIA) can function as an intermediary between parents, but such exceptions are made upon assessment and require disclosure of IPV. This study investigates consequences of the maintenance reform and the ways in which it may re-actualize conflict and IPV between separated parents. Data consist of 649 recorded phone calls (~ 55 h) to the SSIA concerning maintenance. Disclosures of post-separation conflict or IPV were found in 132 of these calls; these calls were analyzed using thematic analysis. The maintenance reform’s requirement to reinstate contact with a former partner can re-actualize experiences of parental conflict as well as IPV by (a) re-surfacing physical or psychological abuse; (b) continued or accelerated cooperative difficulties; (c) renewed financial control; and (d) ‘paper abuse’ and new possibilities to display diligence or exert camouflaged control. This can take the form of explicit acts of abuse, anxiety or concern caused by the renewed contact, or being forced to deal with difficult memories. We argue that the Swedish maintenance reform ignores the reality of parental conflicts and IPV by re-actualizing such experiences in a range of ways.

Challenges in recognizing and facilitating disclosures of intimate partner violence in customer service calls about maintenance support

“…Consequently, callers with experiences of IPV may not realize that they need to disclose this in a more explicit way, or may find it difficult to do so when such tellings are not facilitated by the case officer. This may impact on their possibilities to receive maintenance and lead them to have contact with the other parent, also where this is unsuitable or potentially harmful (cf., Tegler, Fernqvist and Flinkfeldt, 2022). These findings highlight the need for training in both recognizing the various forms that IPV may take (especially psychological and financial abuse, which case officers seem to struggle to detect), and developing communicative skills for how to respond to parents' talk about conflict in a way that facilitates IPV disclosures if relevant.…”

“…Consequently, callers with experiences of IPV may not realize that they need to disclose this in a more explicit way, or may find it difficult to do so when such tellings are not facilitated by the case officer. This may impact on their possibilities to receive maintenance and lead them to have contact with the other parent, also where this is unsuitable or potentially harmful (cf., Tegler, Fernqvist and Flinkfeldt, 2022).…”

“…At this time, letters were sent to parents receiving maintenance support from the SSIA, informing them that they would now need to handle maintenance transfers themselves. Upon receiving such letters, many parents called the SSIA customer service to ask questions or object to being forced to deal with the other parent (Tegler, Fernqvist & Flinkfeldt, 2022). At the time of data collection, guidelines for how to facilitate disclosures of violence had not yet been developed and case officers had little or no training regarding IPV (Fernqvist, 2020).…”

“…Ekström et al, 2013) while also navigating the delicacies of risking being seen as an uncooperative parent. This is crucial in instances where the parent has experienced intimate partner violence (IPV), making direct contact unsuitable, in which case the parent needs to convincingly establish that this is the case (cf., Tegler, Fernqvist and Flinkfeldt, 2022) .…”