Guaranteed or conditional child maintenance? Examining the 2016 reform in Sweden

Stina Fernqvist,Marie Sépulchre

doi:10.1177/02610183211036563

Abstract

Family policies promoting gender equality and parents’ shared responsibility for their children tend to assume good parental collaboration post separation. However, this assumption obscures the reality of conflict and intimate partner violence (IPV) in some separated families. Focusing on Sweden, this article examines the 2016 reform which implies that the state ceases acting as an intermediary to organise child maintenance unless ‘special reasons’, including the experience of IPV, are invoked. Thus, the Swedish guaranteed child maintenance scheme became conditional. Drawing on interviews with resident parents and case officers at the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSIA), this article suggests that the reform increases the vulnerability of resident parents in several ways. Moreover, the ‘special reasons’ exemption creates a new distinction between ‘violent’ and ‘normal’ families, which case workers struggle to administer, and which leads to a withdrawal of state support for many families.

Highlights

Policies promoting gender equality and parents’ shared responsibility for their children tend to assume that parents will collaborate with each other, even after separation or divorce
Financial responsibilities post separation are regulated by law and organised as child maintenance, which can be defined as the ‘money transferred between parents post separation for the purpose of supporting children’ (Cook and Skinner, 2019: 166)
Increased vulnerability to financial abuse. This first theme suggests that the reform puts resident parents, lone mothers for the most part, at risk of financial insecurity and abuse

Summary

Introduction

Policies promoting gender equality and parents’ shared responsibility for their children tend to assume that parents will collaborate with each other, even after separation or divorce. This article aims to contribute to the body of research examining the consequences and risks of ‘amicable’ family policies (Kurki-Suonio, 2000) underpinned by ideals of gender equality and equal parenting. In the case of separation, equal parenting translates into a preference for shared custody, based on the assumption that parents are willing and able to collaborate with each other, and that it is in the child’s best interest to have contact with both parents (Blomqvist and Heimer, 2016; Harris-Short, 2010; Kurki-Suonio, 2000). Broader aspects regarding shifts in families’ access to welfare rights (cf. Titmuss, 1968; Johansson, 2001; Fink, 2001) become relevant in this context

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion