This issue presents a diverse collection of papers covering children and parents’ experiences of the family justice process, parents’ experiences of claiming family friendly entitlement in an employment context, and the flimsiness of Government accountability for its welfare investment choices. Much of this work develops a theme that the journal has been pursuing for some time now: the fall-out of the economic crisis in relation to social welfare and family law.
Kay Tisdall’s paper explores the procedural and institutional mechanisms in place to respond to participation in family court proceedings in Scotland. Drawing on research from childhood studies and recent empirical work, her findings reinforce the view that while courts and their decisions may be ‘child-focused’ and centre on children’s welfare, they are not ‘child-inclusive’, in terms of involving children in decision-making. The persistent difficulties of empowering children to participate in practice, Tisdall argues, is partly attributable to some persistent misconceptions about the very notion of children’s agency, and how easily children’s expressions of agency are ignored or undermined when they conflict with adults’ notions of how agency should be exercised. Reminding us of the essential lessons from childhood studies, Tisdall suggests that rather than seeing agency as an essential identity, position or characteristic, agency is relational and contextual, emotional and, indeed, sometimes unpredictable.
Staying with the family courts, Tatiana Tkacukova investigates the obstacles that litigants in person (an increasing feature of family proceedings in the post LASPO climate) face in a process designed by legal professionals for legal professionals. Drawing on her qualitative analysis of HMCTS forms, court instructions and witness statements as well as observations of court hearings and negotiations, Tkacukova provides a fascinating insight into the communicative challenges facing litigants in person and the linguistic strategies and competencies they develop as proceedings evolve.
The contribution by George, Gallwey and Bader presents the findings of their empirical study into adults’ experiences of family relocation disputes. Their analysis offers a sobering reminder of how hostile court proceedings can be in such cases, severely compounding already difficult family circumstances and, in some cases, causing a significant deterioration in relations between parents.
Moving from the judicial to the employment context, Jamie Atkinson’s paper explores how the right to request flexible working in the UK operates in practice, with a particular focus on women seeking to work part-time following a period of maternity leave. The findings are informed by a small sample of interviews with managers and employees in SMEs and suggest that the right to request flexible working, rather than stimulating positive changes in the way that firms accommodate and value female employees with caring responsibilities, is merely ‘tolerated’ by employers and granted in a highly discretionary way to those seen to be most ‘deserving’.
The final contribution by Mark O’Brien reflects upon the use and abuse of impact assessment mechanisms to support political decision-making. His analysis draws on a detailed and critical evaluation of the Coalition Government’s use of distributional impact assessment to reassure the public that the austerity measures implemented since 2010 would be ‘fair’. In doing so, O’Brien highlights the dangerous seduction of impact assessments mechanisms which add scientific validity to what, in reality, can be so easily methodologically distorted to support inherently unfair decision-making and to entrench socio-economic disparities.