International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family Advance Access published online on February 1, 2008
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebm015
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Family, Social Inequalities, and the Persuasive Force of Interpersonal Obligation
 |
Abstract |
|---|
To date, the privatization of the costs of social inequalities for women and children has been criticized predominantly from a policy perspective. This article seeks to make a stronger case against remedying social inequalities through private law obligations by addressing the theoretical difficulties with such privatization with a particular focus on familial obligations. I take my core examples from the current Canadian understanding of the spousal and child support obligations.
My analysis proposes and proceeds on the basis of a new discourse for obligations traditionally grouped together as "Family Law" obligations: first, interpersonal obligations, which arise from and tie together two citizens through either a single interaction or through their relationship as a whole; second, social obligations, which are owed by the community as a whole to individual citizens.
I argue that the persuasive force of the focus on an individual's responsibility for another's financial need has obscured the reality of the state's obligation, the broader social obligation, to respond to this need. I conclude with a discussion of the consequences of my analysis for the future of the spousal and child support obligations. If we deny an expanded role to these support obligations, can we do so in a way that avoids leaving the impoverished in an even more precarious position?
* University Lecturer in Family Law, University of Oxford; Tutorial Fellow in Law, Oriel College, Oxford. I am grateful to the Law Commission of Canada, Canadian Association of Law Teachers, Canadian Law and Society Association, and the Canadian Council of Law Deans’ 2006 Legal Dimensions Initiative for funding this research as well as my attendance at the Social Sciences Congress 2006 in Toronto. I am also grateful for insightful comments from John Eekelaar, as well as my co-panelists and attendees at the Congress.