1992/11/01 by Scott Coltrane, Neal Hickman · 2 citations
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Rhetoric and Communication Studies #American Constitutional Law and Politics #Latin American and Latino Studies #Rhetoric #Ideology #Child custody #Child support #Law #Rhetorical question #Sociology #Statute #Enforcement #Narrative #Politics #Political science
paper · doi:10.2307/3097018
openalex publication_date 1992/11/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2025/11/06
Laws regulating the postdivorce custody and support of minor children underwent major changes during the 1980s. This paper uses the social constructionist approach to analyze the claims making of fathers' rights groups promoting state joint custody preference statutes and mothers' groups promoting strict federal child support enforcement. Although directly opposed to each others' reforms, both groups used rhetorical strategies that included horror stories, numeric estimates, and an implied societal consensus. Interviews with leading activists indicate that private troubles were transformed into public issues via personal initiative and symbolic representation. Child custody and support reforms were likely to be adopted if they were incremental, attracted little media attention, and were consistent with professional concerns and prevailing ideologies.