Family policies promoting gender equality and parents’ shared responsibility for their children tend to assume good parental collaboration post separation. However, this assumption obscures the reality of conflict and intimate partner violence (IPV) in some separated families. Focusing on Sweden, this article examines the 2016 reform which implies that the state ceases acting as an intermediary to organise child maintenance unless ‘special reasons’, including the experience of IPV, are invoked. Thus, the Swedish guaranteed child maintenance scheme became conditional. Drawing on interviews with resident parents and case officers at the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSIA), this article suggests that the reform increases the vulnerability of resident parents in several ways. Moreover, the ‘special reasons’ exemption creates a new distinction between ‘violent’ and ‘normal’ families, which case workers struggle to administer, and which leads to a withdrawal of state support for many families.

促进性别平等和父母对子女的共同责任的家庭政策倾向于在分居后承担良好的父母合作。然而，这种假设掩盖了一些离散家庭中冲突和亲密伴侣暴力 (IPV) 的现实。本文以瑞典为中心，考察了 2016 年的改革，该改革意味着除非援引“特殊原因”，包括 IPV 的经验，否则国家将不再充当组织儿童抚养的中介。因此，瑞典保证儿童抚养计划成为有条件的。本文通过对瑞典社会保险局 (SSIA) 的常住父母和个案官员的采访，表明改革在几个方面增加了常住父母的脆弱性。而且，