This article examines how domestic violence and its effects on post-separation family life are dealt with within child custody disputes. Drawing on membership categorization analysis, audio-recorded courtroom testimonies from abused mothers seeking sole custody have been analysed. It was found that gendered categories like ‘male perpetrator’ and ‘female victim’ were central components in the mothers’ accounts of their legal claims, serving to support their claims of fearing the fathers of their children. However, the analyses also reveal that the opposing party attempted to contest and undermine such accounts during cross-examinations by substituting the very same categorizations. Such re-categorizations, for example from ‘female victim’ to ‘mad woman’, take the responsibility for the mother’s alleged fear away from the father. In exploring the relevance of gendered categories in mothers’ accounts, the article provides empirical examples of the subtle and complex ways through which gender discourses are manifested in child custody disputes in order to support or contest legal claims.
AtkinsonDDrewP (1979) Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judical Settings, London: Macmillan.
2.
BenwellBStokoeE (2006) Discourse and Identity, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
3.
BilligM (1999) Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse and Society10(4): 543–558.
4.
BoydS (2003) Child Custody, Law and Women’s Work, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
5.
BoydS (2004) Demonizing mothers: Fathers’ rights discourse in child custody law reform process. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering6(1): 52–74.
6.
ButtnyR (1993) Social Accountability in Communication, London: Sage.
7.
CheslerP (2005) Woman and Madness (revised and updated ed), New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
ChristieN (1986) The ideal victim. In: FattahEA (eds) From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, New York: St. Martin’s, pp. 17–30.
9.
CollierR (2009) The fathers' rights movement, law reform, and the new politics of fatherhood: Some reflections on the UK experience. University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy20(1): 65–112.
10.
ConleyJMO’BarrWM (1990) Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
ConleyJMO’BarrWM (2005) Just Words: Law, Language and Power, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12.
CotterillJ (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J, Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
13.
CrowelyJ (2008) Defiant Dads: Fathers’ Rights Activist in America, Itacha: Cornell University Press.
14.
DrewP (1992) Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In: DrewPHeritageJ (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–401.
15.
EdwardsD (1997) Discourse and Cognition, London: Sage.
16.
EdwardsD (1998) The relevant thing about her: Social categories in use. In: AntakiCWiddicombeS (eds) Identities in Talk, London: Sage, pp. 15–33.
EhrlichS (2002) Legal institutions, nonspeaking recipiency and participants’ orientation. Discourse and Society13(6): 731–747.
19.
ErikssonM (2010) Children who witness violence as crime victims and changing family law in Sweden. International Journal of Child Custody7(2): 93–116.
20.
ErikssonMHesterM (2001) Violent men as good enough fathers: A look at England and Sweden. Violence against Women7(7): 779–798.
21.
FloodM (2010) “Fathers’ rights” and the defense of paternal authority in Australia. Violence against Women16(3): 328–347.
22.
FrithH (1998) Constructing the ‘other’ through talk. Feminism and Psychology8(4): 530–536.
23.
GarciaAFisherL (2011) Being there for the children: The collaborative construction of gender inequality in divorce mediation. In: SpeerSStokoeE (eds) Conversation and Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 272–293.
24.
HesterSEglinP (1997) Membership categorization analysis. An introduction. In: HesterSEglinP (eds) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, Lanham, MD: University press of America, pp. 1–24.
25.
JaffePJohnstonJCrooksC (2008) Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review46(3): 500–522.
26.
JaffePLemanNKDPoissonS (2003) Child Custody and Domestic Violence: A Call for Safety and Accountability, Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
27.
JayussiL (1984) Categorisation and the Moral Order, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
28.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerG (eds) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.
29.
KaganasFPiperC (2002) Shared parenting: A 70% solution. Child and Family Law Quarterly14(4): 365–379.
30.
KitzingerC (2007) Is ‘woman’ always relevantly gendered?Gender and Language1(1): 39–49.
31.
KitzingerCRickfordR (2007) Becoming a bloke: The construction of gender in interaction. Feminism and Psychology17(2): 214–223.
32.
KomterM (1998) Dilemmas in the Courtroom: A Study of Trials of Violent Crime in the Netherlands, Mahwah, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates.
33.
MatoesianG (2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Trial, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
PotterJ (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London. Sage–Sage.
35.
PsathasG (1999) Studying the organization in actions: Membership categorization and interactional analysis. Human Studies22(2–4): 139–162.
36.
RhoadesH (2002) The no contact mother: Reconstructions of motherhood in the era of the new father. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family16(1): 71–94.
37.
RhoadesHBoydS (2004) Reforming custody laws: A comparative study. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family18(2): 119–146.
38.
Sacks, H (1992) Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
39.
SchiratzkiJ (2007) Gender in court – In the best interests of the child? A report from a research project on adjudication of parental responsibility in Swedish courts. What is Scandinavian law? Social private law, Scandinavian studies in law50: 477–494.
40.
SchegloffE (1997) Whose text? Whose context?Discourse and Society8(2): 165–187.
41.
SchegloffE (2007) A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics39(3): 462–482.
42.
SingerA (2008) Adjusting to reality: Awareness of domestic violence calls for changes in Swedish family law. In: AtkinB (eds) The International Survey on Family Law, Bristol: Jordan, pp. 437–444.
43.
SmartC (2004) Equal shares: Rights for fathers or recognition for children?Critical Social Policy24(4): 484–503.
44.
SpeerSStokoeE (2011) An introduction to conversation and gender. In: SpeerSStokoeE (eds) Conversation and Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28.
45.
StockillCKitzingerC (2007) Gendered ‘people’: How linguistically non-gendered terms can have gendered interactional relevance. Feminism and Psychology17(2): 224–236.
46.
StokoeE (2003) Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbourhood disputes. Feminism and Psychology13(3): 317–344.
47.
StokoeE (2010) “I’m not gonna hit a lady”: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse and Society21(1): 1–24.
48.
StokoeE (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies14(3): 277–303.
49.
StokoeESmithsonJ (2001) Making gender relevant: Conversation analysis and gender categories in interaction. Discourse and Society12(2): 243–269.
50.
WatsonDR (1978) Categorization, authorization and blame: Negotiation in conversation. Sociology12: 105–113.
51.
WatsonR (1997) Some general reflections on categorizations and sequence in the analysis of conversation. In: HesterSEglinP (eds) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, Lanham, MD: University press of America, pp. 49–75.
52.
WeatherallA (2002) Gender and talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society13(6): 767–781.
53.
Wetherell M (1998) Positioning and interpreting repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism. Discourse & Society 9(3): 387–412.
54.
WowkM (1984) Blame allocation: Sex and gender in a murder investigation. Women’s Studies International Forum7(1): 75–82.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
