Child Support Policy in Australia and the United Kingdom: Changing Priorities But A Similar Tough Deal for Children?

Selective hearing: The gendered construction and reception of Inquiry evidence

“…This is reflected in the increased recognition of women's income in the revised child support formula, with a net effect of reducing the amount of child support due to payees. This finding adds to a growing body of literature which suggests that in Australia, as in other jurisdictions, the child support policy reform process was gendered (Cook and Natalier, 2013;Fehlberg and Maclean, 2009) and reinforced social relations that saw low-income single parents financially disadvantaged as a result of the reforms (Smyth and Henman, 2010).…”

“…The stock story formed a gendered lens that was used by the committee to evaluate the data before them and define those data as legitimate evidence or reject them as inaccurate or irrelevant. The stock story predisposed policymakers to hear data that buttressed the interests of fathers' rights groups, who have been widely acknowledged as being particularly vocal in calling for reform (Boyd, 2004;Commonwealth of Australia, 2006;Fehlberg and Maclean, 2009;Smyth, 2005;Smyth and Henman, 2010). Consistent with Rhoades and Boyd (2004) who identified three recurring themes in family policy reform, we found: (1) appeasing the claims of fathers' rights groups was important in framing the Inquiry; (2) shared parenting was presumed to be widespread but largely unrecognised in the current law; and (3) social scientific data about family life was often not regarded as relevant evidence.…”

“…Fathers reported that they were being victimised and disadvantaged within sexist Family Court and child support systems, with consequences of poverty, despair and fraying relationships with their children (Fehlberg and Maclean, 2009). The injustices men faced were referenced to the 'success' of the CSS in improving the financial circumstances of single-mother headed households and reducing the social security costs to taxpayers by increasing private transfers from non-resident fathers.…”

Separated Parents Reproducing and Undoing Gender Through Defining Legitimate Uses of Child Support

“…Pre-and post-reform, the CSS has reflected the principles that both parents have a duty to financially support their children, and child support is paid to benefit children (Fehlberg and Maclean 2009).…”

“…These groups claim that fathers pay too much child support and mothers spend the money for their own expenses rather than on their children (Boyd 2003;Crowley 2008). These claims can be translated into legislative changes that potentially limit the financial resources available to mothers and children (Boyd 2003;Fehlberg and Maclean 2009). For example, in Australia, where this study was conducted, new legislative provisions have enabled fathers to direct up to 30 percent of their child support payment to specific expenditures (e.g., school fees), irrespective of the mother's consent (Fehlberg and Behrens 2008).…”