The medicalization of family judicial conflicts
A path towards normalization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1255Keywords:
medicalization, normalization, regulation of parental responsibilitiesAbstract
This article aims to provide a critical reflection on the process of medicalization of judicial family and children conflicts, exploring how the medical and social science (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers) discourses and professionals are mingled in Portuguese civil guardianship proceedings. Through the content analysis of a set of judicial processes, we conclude that not only do medical assumptions resonate in the rules of child custody, but there is a tendency in these processes to reduce family conflicts to and treat them as pathological problems and to adopt medical and/or therapeutic and not “exclusively” judicial solutions. The aim is to normalize family and parental relationships that are outside the norm.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF_12_3_Casaleiro_OSLS 254
XML_12_3_Casaleiro_OSLS 59
References
Bala, N., 2005. Tippins and Wittmann asked the wrong question: Evaluators may not be “experts”, but they can express best interests opinions. Family Court Review [online], 43(4), 554–562. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00054.x [Accessed 22 November 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00054.x
Bala, N., and Antonacopoulos, K.D., 2007. The Controversy over Psychological Evidence in Family Law Cases. In: B. Brooks-Gordon and M. Freeman, eds., Law and Psychology. Don Mills: Oxford University Press Canada, 218–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199211395.003.0014
Bodelón, E., 2012. La custodia compartida desde un análisis de género: Estrategias machistas para invisibilizar la violencia en las rupturas familiares. In: T. Picontó Novales, ed., La custodia compartida a debate. Madrid: Dykinson/Instituto de Derechos Humanos Bartolomé de las Casas, 131–154.
Boyd, S., 2003. Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work. Don Mills: Oxford University Press Canada.
Branco, P., 2018. Considering a different model for the Family and Children Courthouse Building. Reflections on the Portuguese experience. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 8(3), 400–418. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-00000-0000-0940 [Accessed 22 November 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0940
Campesi, G., 2008. Norma, normatività, normalizzazione: Un itinerario teorico tra Canguilhem e Foucault. Sociologia del diritto, 2, 5–30.
Canguilhem, G., 1998. Il normale e il patologico. Turin: Einaudi.
Casaleiro, P., 2016. Regulação judicial das responsabilidades parentais: Uma análise a partir da Teoria do Poder de Foucault. Revista Eletrônica Direito e Sociedade – REDES [online], 4(1), 173–193. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18316/2318-8081.16.17 [Accessed 22 November 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18316/2318-8081.16.17
Casaleiro, P., 2017. Justiça procura perícia(s): os processos de regulação das responsabilidades parentais [online]. Tese de Doutoramento, Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/89015 [Accessed 22 November 2021].
Collier, R., and Sheldon, S., 2008. Fragmenting Fatherhood: A Socio-Legal Study. Oxford/Portland: Hart.
Conrad, P., 1992. Medicalization and Social Control. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 18, 209–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.18.1.209
Conrad, P., 2007. The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Direção-Geral da Política de Justiça (DGPJ), 2021. Estatísticas da Justiça: Os números da Justiça em Portugal [online]. Available from: https://estatisticas.justica.gov.pt/sites/siej/pt-pt [Accessed 22 November 2021].
Donzelot, J., 1977. La police des familles. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Fineman, M., 1991. The illusion of equality: The rhetoric and reality of divorce reform. University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish: The birth of prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M., 1978. The History of Sexuality (Vol. I). New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M., 1994. História da sexualidade – I: A vontade de saber. Trans.: M.T.C. Albuquerque and J.A.G. Albuquerque. Lisbon: Relógio D’Água. (Originally published in 1976).
Foucault, M., 1997. “Society Must Be Defended”. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–76. Trans.: D. Macey. New York: Picador.
Foucault, M., 2010. Nascimento da biopolítica. Lisbon: Edições 70. (Originally published in 2004).
Lupton, D., 1997. Foucault and the medicalization critique. In: A. Petersen and R. Bunton, eds., Foucault, Health and Medicine. London: Routledge, 94–112.
Moysés, M.A., and Collares, C., 2007. Medicalização: elemento de desconstrução dos Direitos Humanos. In: Comissão de Direitos Humanos do CRP–RJ, ed., Direitos Humanos? O que temos a ver com isso?. Rio de Janeiro: Consellho Regional de Psicologia, 153–168.
Neale, B., and Smart, C., 1997. Experiments with Parenthood?. Sociology, 31(2), 201–219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031002002
Nye, R.A., 2003. The evolution of the concept of medicalization in the late twentieth century. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39(2), 115–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.10108
Ottosen, M.H., 2006. In the name of the father, the child and the holy genes: Constructions of “the child’s best interest” in Legal Disputes over contact. Acta Sociologica, 49(1), 29–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699306061898
Semple, N., 2011. The “eye of the beholder”: Professional opinions about the best interests of a child. Family Court Review, 49(4), 760–775. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01412.x
Singly, F. de, 2006. Uns com os outros: Quando o individualismo cria laços. Lisbon: Instituto Piaget.
Smart, C., and Sevenhuijsen, S., 1989. Child Custody and the politics of gender. London and New York: Routledge.
Sottomayor, M.C., 2011. Regulação do exercício das responsabilidades parentais nos casos de divórcio. Coimbra: Almedina.
Théry, I., 1989. “The Interest of the Child” and the Regulation of the Post-Divorce Family. In: C. Smart and S. Sevenhuijsen, eds., Child Custody and the politics of gender. London/New York: Routledge, 78–99.
Tippins, T.M., and Wittmann, J.P., 2005. Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00019.x
Veitch, K., 2012. Juridification, medicalisation, and the impact of EU Law: Patient mobility and the allocation of scarce NHS resources. Medical Law Review, 20(3), 362–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fws008
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Paula Casaleiro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
