This paper analyzes why and how child support policy contributes to income inequalities as well as to cross-national variation. It uses an in-depth comparison between France and Quebec (Canada) and drives on a multi-method empirical design to assess how this policy has been designed within each welfare state regime from the 1970s to the 2020s and how family lawyers and lower court judges implement it. It shows that national conceptions of solidarity and justice differ, along with the differences between those two legal systems, leading to cross-national variations regarding child support policy. In Quebec, the neo-liberal wave and the powerful feminist movement have converged to ensure that fathers are made to face up to their financial responsibilities towards their children, which has positive effects for the wealthiest and middle-class families. By contrast, in France, the feminist movement has been less influential while the long-standing family policy has favored state protection toward lone mothers. As a result, the financial risks involved in separation are (partially) compensated by a state system of redistribution, rather than by private remedies, which lead the French system to be more effective for lower-class families. As a result, national context still matters a lot in the part institutional arrangements and professional practices play in income inequalities after parental separations.
My research focuses on the relationship between lawyers and clients as they work through financial settlements upon divorce. The legal framework followed by lawyers and judges dealing with these matters is based on the factors set out in s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, all of which are factual. However, the centrality of emotional experiences to financial remedy cases is a recurring theme in the literature in this field. In my research, I aim to explore the balance between emotional and technical content in the exchanges between lawyers and clients to understand the ways in which lawyers are providing emotional support as well as legal services.
In this paper I will reflect on the initial findings from my PhD research, in which I interviewed family lawyers and clients about their experiences of financial remedy dispute resolution. I will consider the idea that positive communication between client and lawyer requires an ongoing two-way translation process. Further, I will explore each person’s responsibility for the success of those translations, and factors which may support or hinder such translations.
This paper asks what, if any, role should be played by the parties’ conduct (both during the marriage and upon its end) in informing financial outcomes under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA). The MCA currently includes conduct as a relevant factor under s 25, although the case law makes it clear that it is only relevant in rare circumstances, with conduct that is financial in nature being more likely to be deemed relevant than non-financial. The law regarding the relevance of conduct is uncertain and seems to lack a unifying principle justifying it. As part of its comprehensive review of financial remedies law, the Law Commission is currently considering the law relating to conduct.
There is a current trend within family law to move towards a no-fault approach, such as with divorce, with the explanation that attributing blame increases hostility and potentially represents excessive state intervention into private life. This paper seeks to evaluate arguments for and against conduct as a relevant factor, considering both the trend towards a no-blame approach in family law, as well as the increasing understanding in recent years of the impact on individuals of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. It attempts to find the potential moral and philosophical justifications for considering conduct and asks whether these can realistically be adhered to in a family justice system where the majority of cases are settled out of court.