Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relational Vulnerability: The Legal Status of Cohabiting Carers

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, I examine the legal position of those who perform caregiving work within the context of a cohabiting relationship through a novel relational vulnerability lens. I argue that the state, through privatising and devaluing caregiving labour, situates carers within an unequal and imbalanced relational framework, exposing them economic, emotional, and spatial harms. Unlike universal vulnerability, which is inherent and unavoidable, relational vulnerability can be avoided and reduced if the state were to acknowledge that humans are embodied and relational rather than self-sufficient and rational. Law’s treatment of cohabiting carers reflects the state’s broader tendency to value economic self-sufficiency, while confining caregiving to the private family. I argue that the state has a duty to respond directly to relational vulnerability and should aim to make cohabiting carers resilient. Resilience must involve the provision of material resources but should also have a normative commitment to achieving autonomy and equality for those marginalised by law and state policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term ‘social reproduction’ is defined as “biological reproduction; unpaid production in the home (both goods and services); social provisioning … the reproduction of culture and ideology; and the provision of sexual, emotional and affective services (such as are required to maintain family and intimate relationships)” (Hoskyns and Rai 2007, p. 300). Although the article predominantly focuses on caregiving, many of the cases also involve other unpaid work, such as looking after the home or working unpaid in the family business.

  2. Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24.

  3. SRJ v DWJ [1999] 3 FCR 153, 160 (Hale J, as she then was).

  4. The feminine pronoun is used throughout to refer to either male or female persons.

  5. See Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638.

  6. Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107.

  7. Thomson v Humphrey, [2009] EWHC (Ch) 3576, [44] (Warren J).

  8. See James v Thomas [2007] EWCA Civ 1212.

  9. Lloyds Bank v Rosset, n 6, p 133 (Lord Bridge).

  10. Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, [60] (Baroness Hale, as she then was).

  11. Ibid.

  12. Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53.

  13. Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane, n 2, [136] (Baroness Hale).

  14. See Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18.

  15. E.g. Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159; Re Basham [1986] 1 WLR 1498; Wayling v Jones [1995] 69 P&CR 170.

  16. Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317.

  17. See e.g. Curran v Collins [2013] EWCA Civ 382, [13], (Toulson LJ).

  18. Wayling v Jones, n 15.

  19. Culliford v Thorpe [2018] EWHC (Ch) 426.

  20. Ibid, [78] (HHJ Paul Matthews).

  21. Thorner v Major, n 14.

  22. Ibid, [19] (Lord Scott).

  23. Ibid, [70] (Lord Neuberger).

  24. Ibid, [80] (Lord Neuberger).

  25. Lloyds Bank v Rosset, n 6, p. 131 (Lord Bridge).

  26. James v Thomas, n 8, [36] (Sir John Chadwick).

  27. Thomson v Humphrey, n 7, [43] (Warren J).

  28. Dobson v Griffey [2018] EWHC (Ch) 1117.

  29. Ibid, [84] (HHJ Paul Matthews).

  30. Jones v Kernott, n 12, [19] (Lord Walker and Lady Hale).

  31. Stack v Dowden, n 10, [92] (Baroness Hale).

  32. Geary v Rankine [2012] EWCA Civ 555.

  33. Ibid, [7].

  34. Ibid, [13] (Lewison LJ).

  35. The capital limit for means-tested benefits is £16,000.

  36. See White v White [2001] 1 AC 596.

  37. Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, s 28 (3).

  38. The most dramatic cuts took place under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which removed from scope the majority of private family law matters (including actions for a constructive trust or proprietary estoppel), unless an applicant can show evidence of domestic abuse.

  39. The Finnish scheme, Kotohoidontuki, was introduced in 1985 and is available in respect of children aged 1–3 [www.kela.fi (accessed 23 August 2018)]. The Norwegian scheme, Kontantstøtte, was introduced in 1998 and is available for children aged 1–2 [www.nav.no (accessed 23 August 2018)]. The Swedish scheme, Vårdnadsbidrag was introduced in 2008 and is available for children aged 1–2 [www.forsakringskassan.se (accessed 23 August 2018)].

References

  • Adam, Barbara. 1995. Timewatch. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auchmuty, Rosemary. 2016. The limits of marriage protection: In defence of property law. Onati Socio-Legal Studies 6: 1196–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, Anne. 2007. Configuration(s) of unpaid caregiving within current legal discourse in and around the family. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 58: 251–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, Anne, Carole Burgoyne, Elizabeth Clery, et al. 2008. Cohabitation and the law: Myths, money and the media. British Social Attitudes 24: 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, Anne, and Craig Lind. 1999. A matter of trust: The allocation of rights in the family home. Legal Studies 19: 468–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, Anne, and Janet Smithson. 2010. Legal assumptions, cohabitants’ talk and the rocky road to reform. Child and Family Law Quarterly 22: 328–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, Anne, Rosemary Hunter, Janet Smithson, and Jan Ewing. 2017. Mapping paths to family justice: Resolving family disputes in neoliberal times. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berkovitch, Nitza. 1997. Motherhood as a national mission: The construction of womanhood in the legal discourse in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum 20: 605–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottomley, Anne. 1998. Women and trust(s): Portraying the family in the gallery of law. In Land law, themes and perspectives, ed. John Dewar and Susan Bright, 206–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottomley, Anne, and Simone Wong. 2006. Shared households: A new paradigm for thinking about the reform of domestic property relations. In Feminist perspectives on family law, ed. Alison Diduck and Katherine O’Donovan, 39–58. London: Routledge Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Wendy. 1992. Finding the man in the state. Feminist Studies 18: 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoyne, Carole. 2004. Heart-strings and purse-strings: Money in heterosexual marriage. Feminism & Psychology 14: 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoyne, Carole, Victoria Clarke, and Maree Burns. 2011. Money management and views of civil partnership in same-sex couples: Results from a UK survey of non-heterosexuals. The Sociological Review 59: 685–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantillon, Sara. 2013. Measuring differences in living standards within households. Journal of Marriage and Family 75: 598–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, Tony, and Jenny Hockey. 1999. The ideal home as it is imagined and as it is lived. In Ideal homes? Social change and domestic life, ed. Tony Chapman and Jenny Hockey, 1–14. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Elizabeth, Anne Barlow, and Therese Callus. 2006. Community of property—A regime for England and Wales?. London: Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Lyn. 2008. Valuing by doing: Policy options to promote sharing the care. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 10: 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, Rosemary, and Claire Lyonette. 2008. Who does the housework? The division of labour within the home. British Social Attitudes 24: 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, Rosemary, and Claire Lyonette. 2015. Sharing the load? Partners’ relative earnings and the division of domestic labour. Work, Employment & Society 29: 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DallaCosta, Mariarosa, and Selma James. 1973. The power of women and the subversion of the community. Bristol: Falling Wall Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Margaret. 2007. Property: Meanings, histories, theories. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Margaret. 2011. Feminism and the idea of law. feminists@law 1: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, Susan. 2007. Depending on care: Recognition of vulnerability and the social contribution of care provision. Bioethics 21: 500–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Gillian, Julia Pearce, and Hilary Woodward. 2009. Cohabitants, property and the law: A study of injustice. Modern Law Review 72: 24–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easthope, Heather, Edgar Liu, Bruce Judd, et al. 2015. Feeling at home in a multigenerational household: The importance of control. Housing, Theory and Society 32: 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elizabeth, Vivienne. 2001. Managing money, managing coupledom: A critical examination of cohabitants’ money management practices. The Sociological Review 49: 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsæter, Anne-Lise. 2012. Cash for childcare. Experiences from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Berlin: International Policy Analysis, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekerdt, David, and Jennifer Hackney. 2002. Workers’ ignorance of retirement benefits. The Gerontologist 42: 543–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everingham, Christine. 2002. Engendering time: Gender equity and discourses of workplace flexibility. Time & Society 11: 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federici, Silvia. 1975. Wages against housework. Bristol: Falling Wall Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha. 2004. The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha. 2008. The Vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 20: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha. 2010. The vulnerable subject and the responsive state. Emory Law Journal 60: 251–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha. 2017. Vulnerability and inevitable inequality. Oslo Law Review 4: 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, Leo, and Anna Lawson. 1995. Gender, sexuality and the doctrine of detrimental reliance. Feminist Legal Studies 3: 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Lorna. 2007. Conceptualising home: Theories, laws and policies. London: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox-O’Mahony, Lora. 2014. Property outsiders and the hidden politics of doctrinalism’. Current Legal Problems 62: 409–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, Nancy. 1994. After the family wage: Gender equity and the welfare state. Political Theory 22: 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudge, Judy. 2005. The new dual-earner gender contract: Work-life balance or workingtime flexibility. In Labour law, work and family: Critical and comparative perspectives, ed. Joanne Conaghan and Kerry Rittich, 261–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, Simon. 1993. Rethinking family property. Law Quarterly Review 109: 263–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, Simon, and Katharine Davidson. 2012. The Supreme Court on family homes. Law Quarterly Review 128: 178–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, Simon, and Emily MacKenzie. 2015. An introduction to land law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsack, Laura. 1999. A haven in a heartless world? Women and domestic violence. In Ideal homes?: Social change and domestic life, ed. Tony Chapman and Jenny Hockey, 121–132. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, Orla. 2001. The impact of the gender pay gap on post-retirement earnings. Critical Social Policy 21: 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabham, Emily. 2016. Brewing legal times: Things, form, and the enactment of law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gurney, Craig. 1997. “… Half of me was satisfied”: Making sense of home through episodic ethnographies. Women’s Studies International Forum 20: 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, Andrew. 2012. ‘Family property’and the process of ‘familialisation’of property law. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24: 284–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, Arlie, and Anne Machung. 2012. The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooyman, Nancy, Collette Browne, Ruth Ray, et al. 2002. Feminist gerontology and the life course. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 22: 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskyns, Catherine, and Shirin Rai. 2007. Recasting the global political economy: Counting women’s unpaid work. New Political Economy 12: 297–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, Sarah. 2017. Smoke, curtains and mirrors: The production of race through time and title registration. Law and Critique 28: 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotiswaran, Prabha. 2015. Valverde’s chronotopes of law: Reflections on an agenda for socio-legal studies. Feminist Legal Studies 23: 353–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission. 2007. Cohabitation: The financial consequences of relationship breakdown Law Com. No. 307. London: Law Commission.

  • Leckey, Robert. 2008. Contextual subjects: Family, state and relational theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Jane. 2001. The decline of the male breadwinner model: Implications for work and care. Social Politics 8: 152–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, Mianna. 2016. Vulnerability and resilience: A critical nexus. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 37: 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loxton, Deborah. 2005. What future? The long term implications of sole motherhood for economic wellbeing. Just Policy 35: 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, Catriona, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds. 2014. Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, Catriona, and Natalie Stoljar. 2000. Introduction: autonomy refigured. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, ed. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 3–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meagher, Gabrielle. 2002. Is it wrong to pay for housework? Hypatia 17: 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky, Jennifer. 2011. Law’s relations: A relational theory of self, autonomy, and law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelander, Åsa. 2007. Vårdnadsbidrag—En tillbakagång i svensk familjepolitik. Stockholm: Arbetarorelsens Tankesmedja.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, Katherine. 1985. Sexual divisions in law. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orel, Nancy, Ruth Ford, and Charlene Brock. 2004. Women’s financial planning for retirement: The impact of disruptive life events. Journal of Women & Aging 16: 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orel, Nancy, Laura Landry-Meyer, and Maria Spence. 2007. Women’s caregiving careers and retirement financial insecurity. Adultspan Journal 6: 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, Jan. 1983. The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within marriage. Sociological Review 31: 237–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, Jan. 1988. Earning, sharing, spending: Married couples and their money. In Money matters, ed. Robert Walker and Gillian Parker, 195–211. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, Jan. 1989. Money and marriage. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penning, Margaret, and Zheng Wu. 2015. Caregiver stress and mental health: Impact of caregiving relationship and gender. The Gerontologist 56: 1102–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinquart, Martin, and Silvia Sörensen. 2006. Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: An updated meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 61: 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probert, Rebecca. 2001. Trusts and the modern woman: Establishing an interest in the family home. Child and Family Law Quarterly 13: 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, Margaret. 1982. Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review 34: 957–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, Shirin, Catherine Hoskyns, and Dania Thomas. 2014. Depletion: The cost of social reproduction. International Feminist Journal of Politics 16: 86–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgway, Priscilla, Alexa Simpson, Freidnder Wittman, et al. 1994. Home making and community building: Notes on empowerment and place. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 21: 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu, Kalwinder. 2016. Universal Credit and impact on black and minority ethnic communities. London: Race Equality Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Peter. 1989. The meaning of ‘home’ in contemporary English culture. Housing Studies 4: 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellman, Derek. 2005. Towards an understanding of nursing as a response to human vulnerability. Nursing Philosophy 6: 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, Brian. 2015. Keeping up with the Jones case: Establishing constructive trusts in ‘sole legal owner’ scenarios. Legal Studies 35: 226–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Olivia. 2014. Litigating discrimination on grounds of family status. Feminist Legal Studies 22: 175–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Janna. 2014. Being in time: Ethics and temporal vulnerability. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers and Susan Dodds, 162–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, Mitchell. 2018. The vulnerability of heterosexuality: Consent, gender deception and embodiment. Social & Legal Studies 27: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, Mitchell, and Fae Garland. 2018. Legislating intersex equality: Building the resilience of intersex people through law. Legal Studies 38: 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, Joan. 1994. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Allison. 2002. Changing geographies of care: Employing the concept of therapeutic landscapes as a framework in examining home space. Social Science and Medicine 55: 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Fiona. 2010. Migration and care: Themes, concepts and challenges. Social Policy and Society 9: 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Iris Marion. 1995. Mothers, citizenship, and independence: A critique of pure family values. Ethics 105: 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelizer, Viviana. 1997. The social meaning of money. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Rosie Harding, Tatiana Cutts, Régine Tremblay, and Alan Brown for their comments on previous drafts of this article. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the Feminist Legal Studies editorial board for their detailed and constructive feedback, which has vastly improved the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

    Ellen Gordon-Bouvier

Authors
  1. Ellen Gordon-Bouvier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Gordon-Bouvier.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gordon-Bouvier, E. Relational Vulnerability: The Legal Status of Cohabiting Carers. Fem Leg Stud 27, 163–187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09404-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09404-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation