The Campaign for Change of the Child Support Act 1991: Reconstituting the 'Absent' Father
| Date | 01 June 1997 |
| DOI | 10.1177/096466399700600202 |
| Author | Julie Wallbank |
| Published date | 01 June 1997 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
THE
CAMPAIGN
FOR
CHANGE
OF
THE
CHILD
SUPPORT
ACT
1991:
RECONSTITUTING
THE
’ABSENT’
FATHER
JULIE WALLBANK
Lancaster
University,
UK
HE
IMPLEMENTATION
of
the
Child
Support
Act
and
the
first
t
years
of
the
operation
of
the
Child
Support
Agency
prompted
vehe-
-JL
ment
criticisms
from
many
quarters.
Perhaps
one
of
the
most
vora-
cious
sources
of
critique
came
from
middle-class
non-residential
fathers
who
claimed
that
they
were
being
treated
unfairly
by
the
new
measures.
Some
of
the
fathers
were
joined
by
new
partners
who
also
voiced
concerns
about
the
way
the
Act
placed
a
greater
financial
burden
on
the
reconstituted
family.
Fathers
maintained
that
they
were
being
targeted
by
the
Child
Support
Agency
as
the
best
means
of
recouping
the
greatest
amount
of
money
for
the
Treasury
as
they
were
already
paying
maintenance
and
were
therefore
readily
identifiable
for
child-support
purposes.
Non-residential
fathers
as a
group
also
objected
to
the
way
that
they
were
represented
in
many
contemporary
discourses
in
a
negative
manner.
Fathers
were
constructed
as
’absent’
in
both
the
White
Paper
Children
Come
First
(HMSO,
1990)
which
preceded
the
legislation
and
in
the
Act
itself.
In
much
of
the
press
coverage
on
the
child-
support
issue
non-residential
fathers
were
constructed
as
being
feckless
and
in
derogation
of
their
paternal
responsibilities.
This
derisory
language
pro-
vided
a
springboard
for
non-residential
fathers’
campaigns
for
reform
of
the
legislation.
Non-residential
fathers
suggested
that
the
Child
Support
Agency
SOCIAL
&
LEGAL
STUDIES
ISSN
0964 6639
Copyright
©
1997
SAGE
Publications,
London,
Thousand
Oaks,
CA
and
New
Delhi,
Vol.
6
(2), 191-216
191-2
192
was
failing
to
target
those
fathers
who
had
never
paid
maintenance
and
who
were
absent
in
both
emotional
and
financial
terms
from
their
children’s
lives.
In
recognition
of
the
inflammatory
nature
of
the
language
used
to
define
these
men
I
have
elected
to
use
the
term
non-residential
father
as
an
alterna-
tive
throughout
this
article.
Middle-class
fathers
rebelled
against
the
way
that
they
were
constructed
in
discourses
about
child
support
as
’absent’
or
’feckless’
stating
that
these
con-
structions
were
inaccurate
and
unjust.
Moreover
non-residential
fathers
argued
that
the
new
measures
were
unfair
in
that
they
set
the
new
level
of
maintenance
at
an
unreasonably
high
level
with
no
account
being
taken
of
their
newly
assumed
familial
responsibilities.
The
campaigning
middle-class
father
who
was
already
contributing
financially
to
his
first
family
thus
allow-
ing
him
to
demonstrate
some
responsibility
towards
his
children,
sought
to
establish
a
distinction
between
himself
and
the
’feckless’
father
who
was
in
complete
derogation
of
his
paternal
duty.
The
media
frequently
expressed
sympathetic
unquestioning
support
for
the
middle-class
fathers
and
their
new
partners.
As
such
it
is
the
middle-class
father
who
is
privileged
in
social
and
legal
discourses
as
is
evidenced
by
the
changes
implemented
as
a
result
of
the
Social
Security
Committee’s
reports.
The
changes
made
to
the
Act
and
to
the
Agency’s
operation
almost
exclu-
sively
serve
to
benefit
directly
non-residential
middle-class
fathers
and
their
new
families.
In
effect
non-residential
fathers
who
had
repartnered
and
assumed
the
responsibility
of
a
new
family
were
rewarded
by
legal
changes
providing
for
a
new
allowance
for
the
housing
expenses
incurred
by
the
second
family.
This
privileged
legal
position
was
partly
attained
by
non-
residential
fathers
successfully
establishing
distance
between
the
’feckless’
father
of
contemporary
folklore
and
the
active,
participating
father
who
just
happened
not
to
reside
with
his
biological
children.
In
other
words,
middle-
class
fathers
sought
to
construct
themselves
as
non-residential
fathers
who
remained
responsible
for
and
responsive
to
their
children’s
needs.
They
then
wanted
to
distinguish
their
constructed
subject
position
from
that
of
the
demonized
feckless
father
who
is
represented
in
contemporary
debates
on
child
support
as
lacking
in
all
aspects
of
paternal
responsibility.
This
is
the
matter
to
which
I
now
turn.
,
x
’
FATHERS
IN
ABSENTIA:
NOT
GUILTY?
In
defining
the
problem
of
child
support
the
government
is
at
the
same
time
constructing
a
normative
framework
against
which
parental
behaviour
is
measured
and
adjudicated.
The
Child
Support
Act
sets
down
a
minimum
acceptable
standard
of
parental
behaviour
in
the
post-separation
or
divorce
context.
While
it
is
clear
that
the
Act
is
predominantly
concerned
with
ensur-
ing
that
fathers
continue
to
maintain
their
children
financially
the
notion
of
ongoing
parental
responsibility
at
the
centre
of
the
Act
serves
as
a
legislative
restatement
of
the
paternal
’duties
of
kinship
which
are
not
negotiable’
(Neale
To continue reading
Request your trial