Abstract
This paper assesses fathers’ evidence presented to an Australian inquiry into the child support scheme. We examine these data to identify fathers’ proposed child support policy solutions, and compare these against Eekalaar’s critique of parents’ moral responsibilities to children and identification of three substitute social bases for parents’ continued support. We find that despite the inquiry’s technical remit, fathers’ solutions challenged the very basis of child support as maintaining, reinforcing, or redressing their responsibilities to children. Here, we illustrate that such procedures may be unable to contain fundamental challenges to state legitimacy when dealing with contested social issues.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 34 |
| Journal | Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society |
| Early online date | 4 Dec 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 4 Dec 2019 |
Bibliographical note
This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.Keywords
- Australia; child support; fathers; moral authority; state legitimacy
