Getting the Court in Your Business: Unmarried Parents, Institutional Intersectionality, and Establishing Parenting Time Orders in Family Court

Abstract

The child support program reaches half of poor children in the United States, and recent policy proposals would incorporate parenting time into all initial child support orders. Despite the importance and scope of these proposed changes for unmarried parents, research about how parents interpret the decision to set up parenting time orders in family court is limited. Qualitative evidence from individual and group interviews shows that unmarried mothers and fathers perceive family court through competing frames, leading to strategies of either avoidance or engagement with the court system in certain circumstances. Some parents in the study framed family courts as intrusive and opted to stay away from court to avoid unwanted scrutiny by the child welfare and criminal justice systems. In contrast, other parents framed family courts as protective of their families and sought legal help when their child's custody was ambiguous, their child's safety was threatened, or their status in public programs was at stake. These findings are consistent with research on institutional distrust and avoidance but also suggest heterogeneity in unmarried parents’ views of family court as a system that both surveils and safeguards poor families. Findings further demonstrate that unmarried parents view these decisions from a position of institutional intersectionality, or their position at the intersection of multiple state systems that interact with the courts.

Invested Mothering: An Intersectional Analysis of Mothers’ Feminized Breadwinning Strategies Under State-Mandated Child Support Arrangements

“…This category of unconsidered expenses is expansive and often unpredictable, including extra-curricular activities, recreation (such as school dances), orthodontic treatments, cell phone bills, and other unexpected expenses that arise with raising children-leaving it up to parents to figure out these financial considerations. High-income parents are more likely to have the financial resources to navigate these types of negotiations and afford extra expenses (Waller, 2020). Because children are primarily in mothers' care, basic and extra expenses inevitably fall onto mothers, who must request fathers' collaboration and contributions.…”

“…The courts use a separate formula for parents who do not meet the "low-income threshold," and can exercise discretion with families with an "extremely high income," as well as in specific cases (MCSF Manual, 2021, see 1.04(E) Deviation Factors). Moreover, parents in Michigan who receive public benefits are mandated to cooperate with child support enforcement, which is also the case in other states such as New York (Waller, 2020). Although low-income families are likely to avoid formal court orders due to distrust in the legal system and competing frames (Sandefur, 2008;Waller, about the parents, children, child custody court order, child support court order, and caregiving work (i.e., grooming, education, health care, and emotional support).…”

“…Moreover, parents in Michigan who receive public benefits are mandated to cooperate with child support enforcement, which is also the case in other states such as New York (Waller, 2020). Although low-income families are likely to avoid formal court orders due to distrust in the legal system and competing frames (Sandefur, 2008;Waller, about the parents, children, child custody court order, child support court order, and caregiving work (i.e., grooming, education, health care, and emotional support). Parents and children have been given pseudonyms to protect their privacy.…”

Redressing ‘unwinnable battles’: Towards institutional justice capital in Australian child protection

“…The parents and their children involved with child protection are marginalised and powerless. That institutional actors compound this violence through anxiety-provoking practices, such as shifting goal posts and interference with visitation and repatriation, is inexcusable (Braithwaite, 2015; Bridges, 2011; Brown, 2006; Gurusami, 2019; Hamilton, Cleland et al, 2020; Maslen and Hamilton, 2020; Waller, 2019). Violence related to cultural imperialism (Young, 1990) was described particularly in relation to an Aboriginal prisoner whose advocate was pursuing contact.…”