Violence, responsibility and best interests: children rights in Elizabeth Harrower’s A Few Days in the Country and Other Stories

Fan Fang; Xinpei Yu; Yuan Kong

doi:10.1515/ijld-2023-2013

Article

Violence, responsibility and best interests: children rights in Elizabeth Harrower’s A Few Days in the Country and Other Stories

Fan Fang
Fan Fang is Professor of English and Chair of the Department of English. Her research interests are English and American literature, Australian literature, & law and literature. She has published widely in law and literature, and western literature.
, Xinpei Yu
Xinpei Yu is currently pursuing a PhD at Zhejiang University, focusing her research on Australian literature, modernism, and cultural studies.
and Yuan Kong
Yuan Kong is a Lecturer in the English Department at Yunnan University. Her research interests primarily encompass English literature, with a particular focus on Australian literature, African American literature and South Asian English literature.

Published/Copyright: November 1, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Journal of Legal Discourse Volume 8 Issue 2

Abstract

In her short story collection of A Few Days in the Country and Other Stories (2015), contemporary Australian novelist Elizabeth Harrower skillfully portrays a cohort of children who have come of age in diverse fractured family settings since the 1960s. This article delves into the realm of child welfare and best interests in Australia, elucidating the intricate web of family laws that govern these principles. It casts a revealing light on the myriad challenges children confront in contexts marked by family violence, parental separation, and child custody and adoption. This analysis exposes the unfortunate reality where children’s rights are frequently subverted by guardians, effectively preventing their meaningful involvement in familial decision-making. In instances of family violence, children are relegated to the role of silent victims, rendered voiceless by their inability to resist. During divorce proceedings, children are relegated to the sidelines, unable to actively participate in the decision-making process, resulting in the neglect or outright harm of their best interests. Children who find themselves in foster care or adoption situations often respond with unprecedented rebellion, asserting their independence and self-determination beneath the facade of silent victimhood. Tragically, their fundamental rights consistently remain inadequately protected. By undertaking a critical examination of the dynamic between adults and children within the framework of family law and by juxtaposing it with the contemporary portrayal of marginalized children in Australia, as exemplified in Harrower’s works, this article offers multifaceted insights that can guide efforts to safeguard children’s rights and enhance the development and implementation of legislation pertaining to children.

Keywords: Elizabeth Harrower; family law; domestic violence; step-parental responsibility; best interests of the child

Corresponding author: Yuan Kong, English Department, Yunnan University, Kunming, China, E-mail: yuankong@ynu.edu.cn

Funding source: Provincial Social Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China

Award Identifier / Grant number: 23NDJC075YB

Funding source: Scientific Research Funds of Yunnan Provincial Education Department, China

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2023J0075

About the authors

Fan Fang

Fan Fang is Professor of English and Chair of the Department of English. Her research interests are English and American literature, Australian literature, & law and literature. She has published widely in law and literature, and western literature.

Xinpei Yu

Xinpei Yu is currently pursuing a PhD at Zhejiang University, focusing her research on Australian literature, modernism, and cultural studies.

Yuan Kong

Yuan Kong is a Lecturer in the English Department at Yunnan University. Her research interests primarily encompass English literature, with a particular focus on Australian literature, African American literature and South Asian English literature.

Research funding: This work is supported by the project titled “The Evolution of English Literature in American Higher Education and Its Referential Significance,” funded by the Provincial Social Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China (Project No. 23NDJC075YB) and the Scientific Research Funds of Yunnan Provincial Education Department, China (Project No. 2023J0075).

References

AnneWagner, Aleksandra Matulewska & Le Cheng. 2020. Law as a culturally constituted sign-system—a space for interpretation. International Journal of Legal Discourse 5(2). 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2035.Search in Google Scholar

Bainham, Andrew. 1998. Changing families and changing concepts—reforming the language of family law. Child and Family Law Quarterly 10. 117.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Frank. 1995. Australian family law in international context: A recent development. Asia Pacific Law Review 4(1). 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/18758444.1995.11788024.Search in Google Scholar

Bloy, Duncan, Richard Kidner, Paul Dobson, Nigel Gravells & Phillip Kenny. 1994. Child law. London: Cavendish Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Thea & Renata Alexander. 2007. Child abuse and family law: Understanding the issues facing human service and legal professionals. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar

Carr, Susan & Susan Hancock. 2017. Healing the inner child through portrait therapy: Illness, identity and childhood trauma. International Journal of Art Therapy 22(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17454832.2016.1245767.Search in Google Scholar

Charlow, Andrea. 1987. Award custody: The best interests of the child and other fictions. Yale Law and Policy Review 5. 267–290.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & Winnie Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 192. 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0086.Search in Google Scholar

Cook, Kay. 2014. The family: What is it, how do we study it and why? Journal of Family Studies 20(1). 2–4. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2014.20.1.2.Search in Google Scholar

Cook, Kay, Hayley McKenzie & Tess Knight. 2011. Child support research in Australia: A critical review. Journal of Family Studies 17(2). 110–125. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2011.17.2.110.Search in Google Scholar

Deuna, Ina Francesca G. & Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao. 2022. The language of evaluation in a Philippine drug trial: An appraisal framework perspective. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(1). 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2068.Search in Google Scholar

Elrod, Linda & Milfred Dale. 2008. Paradigm shifts and pendulum swings in child custody: The interests of children in the balance. Family Law Quarterly 42(3). 381–418.Search in Google Scholar

Fang, Fan & Xiangjian Hao. 2022. In and out of the cage: Informational privacy in Henry James’s In the Cage. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(1). 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2069.Search in Google Scholar

Finlay, Henry Allan. 1977. A new deal for family law—The Australian Family Law Act 1975. The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 41. 71–111.Search in Google Scholar

Harris-Short, Sonia & Joanna Miles. 2011. Family law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/he/9780199563821.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Harrower, Elizabeth. 2012. The watch tower. Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Harrower, Elizabeth. 2015. A few days in the country and other stories. Melbourne: Text Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Amanda Shea. 2003. The silent minority: The voice of the child in family law. Children Australia 28(4). 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1035077200005794.Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Amanda Shea. 2011. Child safety in Australian family law: Responsibilities and challenges for social science experts in domestic violence cases. Australian Psychologist 46. 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2010.00001.x.Search in Google Scholar

Huffine, Nathan. 2023. Scaling Scalia: Problems for Scalia’s legal theory. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2002.Search in Google Scholar

Indermaur, David. 2001. Young Australians and domestic violence. Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 195. 1–6.Search in Google Scholar

Indyk, Ivor. 2017. A really long prospect: Elizabeth Harrower’s fallen world. In Elizabeth McMahon & Olubas Brigitta (eds.), Elizabeth Harrower: Critical essays, 17–22. Sydney: Sydney University Press.10.2307/j.ctt1zrvhtv.7Search in Google Scholar

Kaspiew, Rae. 2008. Family violence in children’s cases under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): Past practice and future challenges. Journal of Family Studies 14. 279–290. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.14.2-3.279.Search in Google Scholar

Kelly, Joan & Michael Johnson. 2008. Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review 46(3). 476–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x.Search in Google Scholar

Kranebitter, Klara. 2021. The impact of European legal acts on national legal terminology and on German as a minority language in South Tyrol, Italy. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6(1). 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2048.Search in Google Scholar

Luttermann, Claus & Karin Luttermann. 2021. Towards peace in Europe: On legal linguistics, prosperity and European identity – the European Reference Language System for the European Union. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6(1). 7–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2044.Search in Google Scholar

McGee, Caroline. 2000. Childhood experiences of domestic violence. London: Jessica Kingsley.Search in Google Scholar

McInnes, Elspeth. 2014. Madness in family law: Mothers’ mental health in the Australian family law system. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 21(1). 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.774688.Search in Google Scholar

McIntosh, Jennifer & Richard Chisholm. 2007. Shared care and children’s best interests in conflicted separation: A cautionary tale from current research. Australian Family Lawyer 20(1). 3–16.Search in Google Scholar

McMahon, Elizabeth & Brigitta Olubas. 2017. Rediscovering again: Reading Elizabeth Harrower across time. In Elizabeth McMahon & Brigitta Olubas (eds.), Elizabeth Harrower: Critical essays. New South Wales: The University of Sydney.10.2307/j.ctt1zrvhtvSearch in Google Scholar

Moloney, Lawrie. 2009. “Meaningful relationship” in the Family Law Act Amendments of 2006: A social-legal perspective on fathers, mothers and “sharing” of parenting after separation. Journal of Family Studies 15(1). 9–19. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.15.1.9.Search in Google Scholar

Mullender, Audrey. 2002. Rethinking domestic violence: The special work and probation response. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203410547Search in Google Scholar

O’Neill, Onora. 1988. Children’s rights and children’s lives. Ethics 98(3). 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1086/292964.Search in Google Scholar

Rathus, Zoe. 2014. The role of social science in Australian family law: Collaborator, usurper or infiltrator? Family Court Review 52(1). 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12071.Search in Google Scholar

Rhoades, Helen. 2000. Child law reforms in Australia: A shifting landscape. Child and Family Law Quarterly 12(2). 117–133.Search in Google Scholar

Rhoades, Helen. 2008. The dangers of shared care legislation: Why Australia needs (yet more) family law reform. Federal Law Review 36(3). 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x0803600301.Search in Google Scholar

Rhoades, Helen. 2010. Children’s needs and “gender wars”: The paradox of parenting law reform. Australian Journal of Family Law 24(2). 160–175.Search in Google Scholar

Sheldon, Sally. 2009. From “absent objects of blame” to “fathers who want to take responsibility”: Reforming birth registration law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 31. 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060903430215.Search in Google Scholar

Smart, Carol. 1995. Losing the struggle for another voice: The case of family law. The Dalhousie Law Journal 18. 173–195.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Carol. 1989. Feminism and the power of the law. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Carol. 2005. Trust vs. law: Promoting and safeguarding post-adoption contact. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 27(3/4). 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060500392107.Search in Google Scholar

Triseliotis, John. 2002. Long-term foster care or adoption? The evidence examined. Child & Family Social Work 7(1). 23–33.10.1046/j.1365-2206.2002.00224.xSearch in Google Scholar

Wallbank, Julie. 2007. Getting tough on mothers: Regulating contact and residence. Feminist Legal Studies 15. 189–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-007-9056-z.Search in Google Scholar

Warshak, Richard A. 1996. Gender bias in child custody decision. Family Court Review 34(3). 396–409.10.1111/j.174-1617.1996.tb00429.xSearch in Google Scholar

Wikeley, Nick. 2006. Child support: Law and policy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-03-06

Accepted: 2023-09-30

Published Online: 2023-11-01

Published in Print: 2023-12-15

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2013

Keywords for this article

Elizabeth Harrower; family law; domestic violence; step-parental responsibility; best interests of the child