Non-Resident Fatherhood: How it Matters and When Fathers are Most Likely to Stay Involved

by
Introduction

tree11Rising divorce rates have led to more children living apart from their biological fathers. Non-residency (father and child not living together) is a strong predictor of reduced father involvement. Non-residential fathers tend to be less involved with their children, in terms of paternal engagement (direct interaction with children), accessibility, and responsibility (Sandberg & Hofferth, 2001).

However, many non-residential fathers manage to stay connected with their children even after divorce and separation, with positive effects for child wellbeing, including better student outcomes, improved psychological scores, fewer behavioural problems and better peer relationships (Nord, Brimhall & West, 1997; Kelly 1993; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980, all cited in Nord & West, 2001), compared to children with uninvolved non-residential fathers.

The following discusses the types of father involvement that make the biggest difference for children, and the circumstances that best enable non-resident father involvement.

What type of non-residential father involvement is most important?
  • Generally speaking, shared co-parental responsibility for children after a divorce fosters better adjustment in children (Bronstein et al, 1994; Lund, 1987; Seltzer, 1991, cited in Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000).
  • More contact with the nonresident father was associated with better reports of health, though the status of the parents’ divorce agreements was an important moderating factor. Joint custody and voluntary visitation agreements were associated with better health among adolescents than were sole custody and court ordered agreements.  (Nord & Zill, 1996, cited in Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1996).
  • A meta-analytic review of 57 studies (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999) that examined the links between nonresident fathers’ involvement and children’s well-being found that frequency of contact was less important than whether fathers were able to maintain an authoritative style of parenting. This approach is characterised by parents exercising appropriate control and limits while allowing the child autonomy; and parents taking responsibility for limit setting and discipline, and providing explanations for rules.
  • The same study (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999) also identified the payment of child support as the other most important contribution from non-resident fathers, though this was especially important for children’s academic outcomes and, to a lesser extent, for emotional outcomes. Other studies reinforce this finding: child support payments, which reduce the economic hardship in a family, have been linked to greater educational attainment and academic achievement (Knox & Bane 1994; Baydar & Brooks-Gunn 1994, cited in Nord & West, 2001).
  • One of few studies done on divorce in a Chinese context found that inconsistent or rejecting parenting styles in divorced families are linked to child maladjustment (Dong, Wu & Ollendick, 2002).
When are non-residential fathers most likely to stay involved?
  • Socioeconomic factors such as education, income and employment status are consistent predictors of biological father involvement. Among non-resident fathers, those who are more educated, financially better off and employed are more likely to contribute financially and to stay engaged emotionally with the child (Tamis-LeMonda & Cabrera, 1999).
  • Lack of a clear parenting role identity after divorce increases not only stress, but also the likelihood that fathers will withdraw from parental and co-parental interaction (McKenry, et al., 1992; Minton & Pasley, 1996; Seltzer, 1991, cited in Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000).
  • Non-resident fathers’ satisfaction with their own parenting performance predicts co-parental interaction (Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000).
  • Support from the former spouse for the non-resident parent’s own parenting performance is one of the most important predictors of co-parental interaction (Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000).
  • A positive relationship between the non-resident biological father and mother is associated with a greater likelihood that the father will remain involved (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998).
  • Provision of support for the child by the non-resident father’s family of origin is associated with a greater likelihood that the father will remain involved (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1998).
  • Divorce arrangements also make a difference. Having joint custody and/or visitation privileges is an important predictor of payment of child support. Those with these arrangements pay all or part of the payment more often than those who do not (79% versus 56%) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995, cited in Doherty et al, 1996).  Furthermore, more frequent contact is associated with more child support (Seltzer, 1991, cited in Doherty et al, 1996).  Similarly, a tug of war over visitation and other contacts with children is associated with lower child support payments (Dudley, 1991; Seltzer, Schaeffer, & Charng, 1989, all cited in Doherty et al, 1996).
Conclusion

Father-child relationships, especially after separation and divorce, are highly susceptible to various factors, particularly the approach taken by the mother and the nature of the mother-father relationship. Understanding these factors can help family and fatherhood practitioners support families after divorce, and sustain father involvement with their children’s lives.

Works Cited:
  1. Amato, P., & Gilbreth, J. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557-573.
  2. Coley, R.L., & Medeiros, B.L. (2007).  Reciprocal longitudinal relations between nonresident father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132-147.
  3. Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 277-292.
  4. Dong, Q., Wu, Y., Ollendick, T.H. (2002). Consequences of divorce on the adjustment of children in China. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31(1), 101-110.
  5. Madden-Derdich, D. & Leonard, S. (2000). Parental role identity and fathers’ involvement in coparental interaction after divorce: fathers’ perspectives. Family Relations, 49(3), 1741-3729.
  6. Nord, C., & West, J. (2001). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement in their children’s schools by family type and resident status. Retrieved from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/search/fatherhood/htdocs/pdf/nces-2001032.pdf.
  7. Sandberg, J.F. & Hofferth, S. L. (2001). Changes in children’s time with parents: United States, 1981–1997. Demography, 38, 423–36.
  8. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Cabrera, N. (1999). Perspectives on father involvement: Research and social policy. Social Policy Report, 13(2), 1 – 26.

About the Author: The Dads for Life Resource Team comprises local content writers and experts, including psychologists, counsellors, educators and social service professionals, dedicated to developing useful resources for dads.

First published on 02-04-2012.