International evidence suggests that in advanced welfare states the abuse of parents, most particularly mothers, by their (most frequently male) adolescent children is increasingly prevalent. In the United Kingdom, however, child-to-mother abuse remains one of the most under-acknowledged and under-researched forms of family violence. Although it is an issue shrouded in silence, stigma, and shame, the authors' work in the youth justice sphere, focusing on interventions to deal with anti-social behaviour, suggests that adolescent violence toward mothers is a topical and prevalent issue. We identify different ways of conceptualizing it in the policy realms of youth justice, child welfare, and domestic violence. The behaviour of both child/young person and mother is constructed in ways which inform the assignment of blame and responsibility. The paper highlights the silence that surrounds the issue in both the policy and wider academic spheres, hiding the failure of service providers to respond to this very destructive form of intimate interpersonal violence.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper reflects on research carried out with a group of women receiving intensive family support aimed at addressing the cause of their family's 'anti-social behaviour'. The methodological approach to the research was underpinned by the philosophical principles of critical realism. It was also informed by the ethical and political concerns of feminist scholarship. The paper reports on the potential points of tension that arise between feminism and critical realism in empirical research. In particular, attention is centred on the process of trying to marry approaches which stress the central role of participants' knowledge, particularly those who are 'labelled' and whose voices are not readily heard, with the principle that some accounts of 'reality' are better than others.

In seeking to make sense of the role of intensive family support in the governance of anti-social behaviour, this paper focuses analytical attention on one case study project, the Family Support Service. It draws on interview material from five women whose experiences were tracked in repeat interviews over an 18-month period. The Family Support Service entailed intense surveillance and supervision of marginalised populations in domestic private spaces and did, therefore, have controlling and disciplinary qualities, particularly with regard to the families living in ‘core’ residential accommodation. Yet, in spite of this, the Family Support Service also contained a significant social welfare ethos based on finding long-term sustainable solutions to individuals’ problems, not least security of housing and income. This paper argues that while we must confront the worrying and disconcerting aspects of intensive family support, the intervention might be conducive to helping disadvantaged and troubled families access better lives. There is a need for further research, however, about how to achieve less punitive types of family intervention and, therefore, how progressive change for vulnerable families might be generated.

A significant body of thinking around the UK Government's antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy agenda draws its inspiration from postFoucauldian governmentality theory. This is an indispensable body of work that has been particularly productive when grounded in empirical research studies which have critically analysed the way governmental rationalities are translated into policy 'on the ground'. This article argues, however, that there is a need to move beyond 'the social construction of reality' thesis prevalent in this approach and direct our attention to ontologically focused questions. It contends that critical realism could effectively complement governmentality perspectives and deepen our understanding of ASB policy by enabling researchers to move beyond a focus on the 'construction' of ASB to the 'reality' of ASB.