Following decades of criticism, the federal government amended the Divorce Act in 1997 to include guidelines and support tables for the determination of child-support orders. The guidelines were meant to replace a child-support system that relied heavily on judicial discretion, which was blamed for the inconsistency between awards, the inadequacy of the amounts awarded, and inequity in the system. Normative messages about parental responsibility and good behaviour were reinforced in the new child-support regime. Through an analyses of case law, government documents, and interviews with lawyers, unique insight is gained in expanding our understanding of what is happening “on the ground,” beyond the “black letter of the law,” pursuant to the child-support law reforms. This article outlines the dominant message about responsibility that parents receive when they encounter child-support law. Further, it is necessary to consider the socio-economic context in which these reforms have occurred, as they have significant implications for the family in today's society. In the current climate of neo-liberalism, the reformed child-support legislation might be seen as one strategy in the state's reconfiguration of responsibility for the welfare of children. This research demonstrates that while the rationalization of child support has achieved some key objectives, it will fail as an anti-poverty measure.

This article describes the emergence of imprisonment as part of the collection of child-support debt in Alberta, Canada. This approach to child poverty arose in the context of political conservatism, a shift in the feminist movement, and changes in the legal environment. Findings indicate that incarceration for support debt is increasing and that Blacks, Aboriginals, the unemployed, and those without post-secondary education are over-represented among those imprisoned for support debt. It is argued that child-support enforcement as an implement of social policy has limits, especially among low-income payors.

Through the journey of one symbolic legal institution—mahr (a form of dowry)—the article follows the ways in which Islamic marriage has travelled to Canada, the United States, France, and Germany, offering a panoply of conflicting images, contradictions, and distributive endowments in transit from Islamic family law to Western adjudication. The author emphasizes the importance of ensuring that distributive consequences, rather than recognition, occupy a central place in the assessment of the legal options available to Muslim women in Western courts. This article represents an important methodological contribution to the debates over the role of identity politics and the (im)possibility of legal transplants in comparative law. The author's argument is that mahr cannot travel to Western liberal courts without carrying with it a very complex interaction among several parties whose interests are often opposed as to its recognition. A legal realist and distributive analysis of Islamic marriage is crucial, she argues, because mahr is often used by the parties as a tool of relative bargaining power in negotiating contractual obligations related to the family. Moreover, Islamic law travels with a multiplicity of voices, and it is this complex hybridity that will be mediated through Western law upon adjudication.

The careers of male lawyers are radically altered by their experiences in the formation of families. These understudied male experiences fuel income differences, creating a highly hierarchical profession focused around a male mystique of “living large.” This study traces these processes across a 20-year longitudinal study of Toronto lawyers. We argue that time with corporate clients is a very specialized investment that is rewarded with partnership and earnings and that, among men, bears an unexpectedly unique relationship to having children, and that this specialized investment and its relationship to family are more culturally driven than biologically derived.