Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2008 Nov 1;99(Suppl 2):33–37. doi: 10.1007/BF03403802

Mothers’ Health, Responsibilization and Choice in Family Care Work after Separation/Divorce

Rachel Treloar 16,✉, Laura Funk 26
PMCID: PMC6976067

Abstract

Many Canadian social policies emphasize the obligation of individuals to care for their dependent family members, reflecting normative expectations that family members are responsible for providing support for one another. Such policies have particular implications for the economic, emotional and physical well-being of those who do family care work, primarily mothers. In this paper, we suggest that the concepts of familialism and responsibilization can help in understanding how post-separation/divorce care work is highly gendered. We describe the implications of familialistic policies, practices and assumptions for mothers’ health with a focus on the Canadian context. In doing so, we draw on secondary data concerning mothers’ primary care work of parenting during separation and divorce. Further, we suggest that the ways in which mothers exercise choice with regard to self-care and familial caring roles are both shaped by, and rooted in, the Canadian socio-political context of neo-liberal reforms. We conclude by providing recommendations for future research, and health and social service policy and practice.

Key words: Family caregiving, women’s health, divorce

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: This article benefited from insightful comments and contributions by members of the Life-Course Panel (Karen Kobayashi, Pat McKenzie and Rachel Westfall) at the International Workshop on Comparative Perspectives on Gender, Health Care Work and Social Citizenship Rights, held at the University of Victoria in 2006. Also, the authors acknowledge Dr. Cecilia Benoit, Dr. Helga Hallgrímsdóttir, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments regarding earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  • 1.Ungerson C. Social politics and the commodifi-cation of care. Soc Politics. 1997;4(3):262–81. doi: 10.1093/sp/4.3.362. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Henderson J, Forbat L. Relationship-based social policy: Personal and policy constructions of “care”. Critical Soc Policy. 2002;22(4):669–87. doi: 10.1177/02610183020220040601. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ward-Griffin C, Marshall V. Reconceptualizing the relationship between “public” and “private” eldercare. J Aging Studies. 2003;17:189–208. doi: 10.1016/S0890-4065(03)00004-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Segal L. What is to be Done about the Family? Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lewis J. The End of Marriage? Individualism and Intimate Relations. Northampton, UK: E. Elgaru Publishing; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Esping-Andersen G. Social Foundations of Post Industrial Economies. New York, NY: Oxford; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Olesen V. Caregiving, ethical and informal: Emerging challenges in the sociology of health and illness. J Health Soc Behavior. 1989;30:1–10. doi: 10.2307/2136906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kline M. Complicating the ideology of motherhood: Child welfare law and First Nations women. In: Kappin I, Fineman M, editors. Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood. New York: Columbia University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fineman M. The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency. New York: New Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McMahon M. Engendering Motherhood: Identity and Self Transformation in Women’s Lives. New York: Guilford Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Burchell B. Liberal government and techniques of the self. In: Barry A, Osborne T, Rose N, editors. Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 19–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McDaniel S, Gee E. Social policies regarding caregiving to elders: Canadian contradictions. J Aging Soc Policy. 1993;5:57–72. doi: 10.1300/J031v05n01_05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Baines C, Evans P, Naysmith S W c W e s contracting I, editors. Women’s Caring: Feminist Perspectives on Social Welfare. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press; 1998. pp. 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rose N. Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In: Barry A, Osborne T, Rose N, editors. Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wuest J. Illuminating environmental influences on women’s caring. J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:49–58. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997026049.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Calasanti T, Slevin K. Gender, Social Inequalities and Aging. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Aronson J. Women’s sense of responsibility for the care of old people: “But who else is going to do it?”. Gender and Society. 1992;6(1):8–29. doi: 10.1177/089124392006001002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Armstrong P, Armstrong H. Thinking it through: Women, work and caring in the new millennium. In: Grant K, Armstrong P, Boscoe M, Pederson A, Willson K, editors. Caring For/Caring About: Women, Home Care and Unpaid Caregiving. Aurora, ON: Garamond Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lewis J. Perceptions of risk in intimate relationships: The implications for social provision. J Soc Policy. 2005;34(1):39–57. doi: 10.1017/S0047279405009347. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Statistics Canada. Overview of the Time Use of Canadians. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chappell N, Gee E, McDonald L, Stone M. Aging in Contemporary Canada. Toronto: Prentice-Hall; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pylkkänen A. Transformation of the Nordic model: From welfare politics to gendered rights. Can J Women Law. 2007;19(2):335–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Martin-Matthews A, Campbell L. Gender roles, employment and informal care. In: Arbor S, Ginn J, editors. Connecting Gender and Ageing. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press; 1995. pp. 129–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aronson J. Dutiful daughters and undemanding mothers: Constraining images of giving and receiving care in middle and later life. In: Baines C, Evans P, Neysmith S, editors. Women’s Caring: Feminist Perspectives on Social Welfare. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press; 1988. pp. 114–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rose H, Bruce E. Mutual care but differential esteem: Caring between older couples. In: Arber S, Ginn J, editors. Connecting Gender and Ageing: A Sociological Approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1995. pp. 114–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cranswick K. General Social Survey Cycle 16: Caring for an Aging Society. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dosman D, Keating N. Cheaper for whom? Costs experienced by formal caregivers in adult family living programs. J Aging Soc Policy. 2005;17:67. doi: 10.1300/J031v17n02_05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Feinberg L, Wolkwitz K, Goldstein C. Ahead of the Curve: Emerging Trends and Practices in Family Caregiver Support. San Francisco, CA: National Center on Caregiving; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Keefe J, Fancey P, White S. Consultation on Financial Compensation Initiatives for Family Caregivers of Dependent Adults. Final Report. Halifax: Mount Saint Vincent University; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Amato P. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. J Marriage Fam. 2000;62:873–907. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lorenz F, Wickrama K, Conger R, Elder G. The short-term and decade-long effects of divorce on women’s midlife health. J Health Soc Behav. 2006;47:111–25. doi: 10.1177/002214650604700202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cohen S, Frank E, Doyle W, Skoner D, Rabin B, Gwaltney J. Types of stressors that increase susceptibility to the common cold in healthy adults. Health Psychol. 1998;17:214–23. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.17.3.214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Freemont A, Bird C. Social and psychological factors, physiological processes, and physical health. In: Bird C, Conrad P, Freemont A, editors. Handbook of Medical Sociology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2000. pp. 334–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Avison W. Single motherhood and mental health: Implications for primary prevention. CMAJ. 1997;156:661–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Finnie R. Women, men and the economic consequences of divorce. Can Rev Sociol Anthropol. 1993;30:205–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-618X.1993.tb00173.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Statistics Canada. The Daily. 2006. Women in Canada: A gender based statistical report. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wickrama K, Lorenz F, Conger R, Elder G, Abraham W, Fang S. Changes in family financial circumstances and the physical health of married and recently divorced mothers. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:123–36. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dunne J, Hudgins E, Babcock J. Can changing the divorce law affect post-divorce adjustment? J Divorce and Remarriage. 2000;33(3/4):35–54. doi: 10.1300/J087v33n03_03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Smart C. Towards an understanding of family change: Gender conflict and children’s citizenship. Aust J Fam Law. 2003;17(1):1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Stacer D, Stemen F. Intervention for high-conflict custody cases. Am J Fam Law. 2000;14:242–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rhoades H, Graycar R, Harrison M. The Family Law Reform Act 1995: The First Three Years. Sidney, NSW: University of Sydney and Family Court of Australia; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Diduck A. Law’s Families. London: Lexis-Nexis UK; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Irwin L, Thorne L, Varcoe C. Strength in adversity: Motherhood for women that have been battered. Can J Nurs Res. 2002;34(4):47–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.BC Ministry of the Attorney General. A New Justice System for Families and Children. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Statistics Canada. The Daily. 2006. Women in Canada. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Teghtsoonian K. W(h)ither women’s equality? Neoliberalism, institutional change and public policy in British Columbia. Policy, Organisation and Society. 2003;22(1):25–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Brewin A. Legal Aid Denied: Women and the Cuts to Legal Services in BC. 2004. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Armstrong P. Restructuring public and private: Women’s paid and unpaid work. In: Boyd SB, editor. Challenging the Public/Private Divide: Feminism, Law, and Public Policy. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press; 1997. pp. 37–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Boyd S, Young C. Who influences family law reform? Discourses on motherhood and fatherhood in legislative reform debates in Canada. Studies in Law, Politics and Society. 2002;26:43–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Rhoades H. The ‘no contact mother’: Reconstructions of motherhood in the era of the ‘new father.’. Int J Law, Policy and the Family. 2002;16(1):71–94. doi: 10.1093/lawfam/16.1.71. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Burck C, Hildebrand J, Mann J. Women’s tales: Systemic groupwork with mothers post-separation. J Fam Therapy. 1996;18:163–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6427.1996.tb00042.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Chesler P. Mothers on trial: The custodial vulnerability of women. Feminism and Psychology. 1991;1(3):409–25. doi: 10.1177/0959353591013006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Schultz C, Leslie L. Family therapy trainees’ perceptions of divorced mothers: A test of bias in information recall. Family Relations. 2004;53(4):405–11. doi: 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00047.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hardesty J, Chung G. Intimate partner violence, parental divorce and child custody: Directions for intervention and future research. Family Relations. 2006;55(2):200–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00370.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Silverman J, Mesh C, Cuthbert C, Slote K, Bancroft L. Child custody determinants in cases involving intimate partner violence: A human rights analysis. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(6):951–57. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.6.951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Boyd SB. Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gilligan C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kaganas F. Contact, conflict and risk. In: Piper C, Day Sclater S, editors. Undercurrents of Divorce. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kelly J, Emery R. Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations. 2003;52:352–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00352.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Johnston J. High conflict divorce. The Future of Children. 1994;4(1):165–82. doi: 10.2307/1602483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.King V, Sobolewski J. Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being. J Marriage Family. 2006;68(3):537–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00274.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Duffy M, Thomas C, Trayner C. Women’s reflections on divorce–10 years later. Health Care for Women Int. 2002;23:550–60. doi: 10.1080/07399330290107313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Smart C, Neale B. Family Fragments? Cambridge: Polity Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Christopher K. Welfare state regimes and mothers’ poverty. Soc Politics. 2002;9(1):60–86. doi: 10.1093/sp/9.1.60. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Sevenhuijsen S. Citizenship and the Ethic of Care: Feminist Considerations on Justice, Morality and Politics. New York: Routledge; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hankivsky O. Social Policy and the Ethic of Care. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES