The 'No Contact Mother': Reconstructions of Motherhood in the Era of the 'New Father'

Abstract

for their helpful comments on an earlier version.

The Gendered Dynamics of Power in Disputes Over the Postseparation Care of Children

“…Hence, postseparation parenting is now conceptualized as a joint parenting project that requires parents to cooperate with each other and to engage in ongoing negotiations in the interests of their children (Rhoades, 2002;Wallbank, 2007). Joint parenting, however, can mean a number of quite different things.…”

“…As these writers reveal, provisions for father contact are increasingly being awarded and enforced in spite of claims about or, indeed, evidence of a father's violence. In part this is the outcome of a sustained, but largely unfounded, attack by fathers' rights groups on the credibility of accusations about paternal violence (Davis, 2004; see also Flood, 2010;Kaspiew, 2005;Maloney et al, 2007;Rhoades, 2002). Yet the reluctance of family courts to put limits on fathers' contact also reflects a tendency within the custody arena to treat the harm brought about by a father's absence as more significant than the harm brought about by a father's mistreatment Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Harrison, 2008;Hester & Radford, 1996;Neustein & Lesher, 2005;Rhoades, 2002;Smart, 1997;Varcoe & Irwin, 2004).…”

“…In part this is the outcome of a sustained, but largely unfounded, attack by fathers' rights groups on the credibility of accusations about paternal violence (Davis, 2004; see also Flood, 2010;Kaspiew, 2005;Maloney et al, 2007;Rhoades, 2002). Yet the reluctance of family courts to put limits on fathers' contact also reflects a tendency within the custody arena to treat the harm brought about by a father's absence as more significant than the harm brought about by a father's mistreatment Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Harrison, 2008;Hester & Radford, 1996;Neustein & Lesher, 2005;Rhoades, 2002;Smart, 1997;Varcoe & Irwin, 2004). The upshot, according to these critics, is that contact is made available to fathers as a site through which they can continue to "exert power and control" over mothers and children with impunity (Varcoe & Irwin, 2004, p. 78; see also Beeble et al, 2007;Davis, 2004;Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Harrison, 2008;Hester & Radford, 1996;Rhoades, 2002).…”

“…Yet the reluctance of family courts to put limits on fathers' contact also reflects a tendency within the custody arena to treat the harm brought about by a father's absence as more significant than the harm brought about by a father's mistreatment Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Harrison, 2008;Hester & Radford, 1996;Neustein & Lesher, 2005;Rhoades, 2002;Smart, 1997;Varcoe & Irwin, 2004). The upshot, according to these critics, is that contact is made available to fathers as a site through which they can continue to "exert power and control" over mothers and children with impunity (Varcoe & Irwin, 2004, p. 78; see also Beeble et al, 2007;Davis, 2004;Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Harrison, 2008;Hester & Radford, 1996;Rhoades, 2002). Prompted by these observations, renewed calls have been made by advocates and academics for professionals working on family court matters to recognize the destructive realities of male violence (Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Hester & Radford, 1996;Harrison, 2008;Rhoades, 2002;Varcoe & Irwin, 2004;Wuest et al, 2006).…”

“…The upshot, according to these critics, is that contact is made available to fathers as a site through which they can continue to "exert power and control" over mothers and children with impunity (Varcoe & Irwin, 2004, p. 78; see also Beeble et al, 2007;Davis, 2004;Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Harrison, 2008;Hester & Radford, 1996;Rhoades, 2002). Prompted by these observations, renewed calls have been made by advocates and academics for professionals working on family court matters to recognize the destructive realities of male violence (Eriksson & Hester, 2001;Hester & Radford, 1996;Harrison, 2008;Rhoades, 2002;Varcoe & Irwin, 2004;Wuest et al, 2006). Properly recognized, they argue, male violence would operate as a condition that limited the contact provisions granted to separated fathers.…”