Gender, malice, obligation and the state: Separated mothers’ experiences of administrative burdens with Australia's child support program

Abstract

AbstractThis article provides an empirical account of Herd and Moynihan's theory of administrative burdens as they apply to Australian child support recipients. Interviews with 41 separated mothers revealed how they were compelled to engage in the child support system and then required to expend significant time and effort undertaking administrative work on behalf of the state, often for little financial benefit. Unlike the examples provided by Herd and Moynihan, in this study, it was found that child support system burdens could be used by aggrieved fathers to inflict financial and psychological harms on their ex‐partners. The state accepted fathers’ imposition of costs on mothers as they shared a financial interest in maintaining women's burdens. As a result, this paper provides three conceptual advancements on the existing theory, by articulating: how administrative burdens can be created and applied by non‐government third parties, in this case individual ex‐family members; how the state can acquiesce to the imposition of harms if these align with their interests; and how the state distributes obligations and autonomy along social lines, such as, in this case, along the lines of class and gender.