‘Ordinary decent domestic violence’: A discursive analysis of family law judges’ interviews

Abstract

The present study examined judges' constructions of the 'best interests of the child' in child custody and access arraignments where there were allegations of domestic violence within the context of an interview. Using interviews with six Irish District court judges a microstructural discourse analysis enabled the identification of socio-cultural discourses, scientific knowledge, and judges' own values beliefs and bias about custody arraignments in cases of domestic violence. Judges' discourses were shaped by an idealisation of the nuclear family unit which resulted in a pro-access philosophy (theme 1). The knowledge that domestic violence had occurred challenged this ideology and, to rhetorically manage this dilemma, judges' talk normalised, or trivialised abusive parents' behaviour, which rendered domestic violence irrelevant to child custody and access (theme 2). Mothers who alleged domestic violence when they disputed contact between fathers and their children were pathologised through talk (theme 3). It is recommended that systems be put in place, including judicial training, to facilitate judges in their decision making process in this highly discretionary and complex area of the law.

Institutional Violence Against Users of the Family Law Courts and the Legal Harassment Scale

“…We believe it is very important to work on the creation of protocols that prevent the legal harassment of all parties by imposing ethical guidelines for the way lawyers question the opposite party, in the way other legal professionals address parties, and the behavior of the judges and prosecutors (Vollans, 2010; Rivera et al, 2012; Naughton et al, 2015; Laing, 2016; Meier and Dickson, 2017; Epstein and Goodman, 2018). The formation of protocols for the treatment parties in court proceedings is necessary and urgent.…”

“…All this is related to the meaning that judges grant to the concept of “the child’s best interests,” a question studied, among others, by Clemente et al (2015), as well as by Naughton et al (2015). In the case of this second group of authors, the analysis is performed according to the use of cognitive and heuristic schemas employed by judges.…”

Reversing Positions: Constructions of Masculine Victimhood in Online Discussions about Intimate Partner Violence Committed by Women

“…This is, therefore, another way in which gendered assumptions about men as likely perpetrators of violence are portrayed as detrimental to male victims of IPV for reason of blinding people to men’s victimhood. These claims about the prevalence of “male bashing” (Berns 2001) in the form of demonization are accompanied and enabled by culturally commonplace positionings of women as prone to make false allegations of men’s use of violence (Durfee 2011; Naughton et al 2015). In consequence of the relational nature of subject positions (Davies and Harré 1990), these positionings of women in the discussions effectively deflect the possibility of the truthfulness of such allegations against men.…”

‘Then she got a spanking’: Social accountability and narrative versions in social workers’ courtroom testimonies

“…Such disputes are, however, rich in contrasting narrative versions of 'what has happened'. This might for instance concern whether or not there is a history of domestic violence or other potential risk scenarios (Naughton et al, 2015). In cases of contested child custody, one party claims that the other party does not attend to the child's best interests.…”