Risks and benefits of post-separation parenting apps: perceptions of family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/09649069.2023.2206225

Genevieve M. Heard, Michelle A. Irving, Bruce M. Smyth, J. Payne, Glenn Althor

{"title":"Risks and benefits of post-separation parenting apps: perceptions of family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand","authors":"Genevieve M. Heard, Michelle A. Irving, Bruce M. Smyth, J. Payne, Glenn Althor","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2206225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Mobile phones have become an essential part of modern family life. Their proliferation has been accompanied by a diverse range of apps, including apps for separated parents. Family law professionals are increasingly being asked about post-separation parenting apps by clients. Yet the empirical evidence about their potential benefits and risks is sparse. The present study draws on qualitative data from an online survey of 344 family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand about their attitudes to co-parenting apps. Three broad potential benefits of co-parenting app functions were identified: accountability, convenience and containment. Drawing on a realist evaluation framework, we find that the same app functions were identified as posing a variety of potential risks, including technology-facilitated abuse, depending on context. We argue that family law professionals need a good understanding of the potential benefits and risks of co-parenting apps, along with the contextual factors that can determine outcomes.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"143 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2206225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Mobile phones have become an essential part of modern family life. Their proliferation has been accompanied by a diverse range of apps, including apps for separated parents. Family law professionals are increasingly being asked about post-separation parenting apps by clients. Yet the empirical evidence about their potential benefits and risks is sparse. The present study draws on qualitative data from an online survey of 344 family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand about their attitudes to co-parenting apps. Three broad potential benefits of co-parenting app functions were identified: accountability, convenience and containment. Drawing on a realist evaluation framework, we find that the same app functions were identified as posing a variety of potential risks, including technology-facilitated abuse, depending on context. We argue that family law professionals need a good understanding of the potential benefits and risks of co-parenting apps, along with the contextual factors that can determine outcomes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

分居后育儿应用程序的风险和好处:澳大利亚和新西兰家庭法专业人士的看法

手机已经成为现代家庭生活中不可或缺的一部分。它们的激增伴随着各种各样的应用程序，包括为分居父母设计的应用程序。越来越多的客户向家庭法律专业人士询问离婚后的育儿应用。然而，关于它们的潜在利益和风险的经验证据很少。目前的研究利用了澳大利亚和新西兰344名家庭法专业人士对共同抚养应用程序的态度的在线调查的定性数据。他们确定了共同抚养孩子的应用程序功能的三大潜在好处:问责制、便利和遏制。根据现实主义评估框架，我们发现相同的应用程序功能被确定为构成各种潜在风险，包括技术促进的滥用，具体取决于环境。我们认为，家庭法专业人士需要很好地了解共同抚养应用程序的潜在好处和风险，以及可能决定结果的背景因素。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW LAW-

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

13.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law is concerned with social and family law and policy in a UK, European and international context. The policy of the Editors and of the Editorial Board is to provide an interdisciplinary forum to which academics and professionals working in the social welfare and related fields may turn for guidance, comment and informed debate. Features: •Articles •Cases •European Section •Current Development •Ombudsman"s Section •Book Reviews