Premium
Protection, manipulation or interference with relationships? Discourse analysis of New Zealand lawyers' talk about supervised access and partner violence
Author(s) -
Pond Rachael,
Morgan Mandy
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of community and applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.042
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1099-1298
pISSN - 1052-9284
DOI - 10.1002/casp.948
Subject(s) - legislation , context (archaeology) , harm , domestic violence , legal guardian , psychology , poison control , child protection , criminology , suicide prevention , social psychology , public relations , sociology , political science , medicine , law , environmental health , paleontology , biology
Violence against women within the context of intimate relationships is a complex social problem in Aotearoa/New Zealand and internationally. Such abuse by men is particularly problematic because of its prevalence, and because of the extent and magnitude of deleterious effects on the health and psychological well‐being of women and children. In New Zealand, the legal system is assumed to play an important role in protecting women and children from domestic violence. Through the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and the amended Guardianship Act 1968, persons who are physically, sexually or psychologically abusive to their children, or to their partner whilst children are present, may only be entitled to supervised access to these children. Although supervised access has been found to increase the safety of women and children, it remains a contentious issue. Because of the role that legal professionals have in the implementation of relevant legislation, the present research explored how lawyers make sense of supervised access in the context of domestic violence. Eighteen male and female lawyers were interviewed. Their interview transcripts were then subject to discourse analysis. This paper illustrates and discusses discourses used in relation to supervised access, including those that support protecting children from the harm of domestic violence through supervised access, and those that challenge the need for children's protection. Within the cluster of latter discourses, supervised access was not considered a means of balancing children's relationships with both parents with children's need for protection, or a way of enabling men to have a safe relationship with their children. Rather, it was constructed as violating men's rights to a relationship with their children, and children's right to a relationship with both parents. The prevalence of discourses opposing supervised access could affect the likelihood of women obtaining protection orders and supervised access conditions, and hence, women and children's safety. However, perpetuation of ‘supportive’ discourses could enhance women and children's well‐being, and facilitate safe ongoing relationships between children and non‐custodial parents. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.