Parenting Time & Shared Residence: 10 Common Myths

Parenting Time & Shared Residential Custody: Ten Common Myths

by Dr. Linda Nielsen, Jan 2013

Linda Nielsen was appointed Professor of Adolescent & Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, North Carolina 36 years ago. She thus has an almost unrivaled wealth of experience and must have seen many fads and fashions come and go. She is the author of five books and dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles and commentaries such as this taken from The Nebraska Lawyer, published in Jan 2013. Her research areas of expertise are ‘shared residential parenting’ for children of divorce and father-daughter relationships and their associated legislation.

Her reviews of 30 years of research on shared residential custody have been presented at the Association of Conciliation and Family Courts national conference and the Midwestern Family Law Conference, and published in the American Journal of FamilyLaw and the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage.

The article below is based on 64 articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Given the constraints of space, fewer than a third of these references are listed in this article. A version of this article first appeared in The Nebraska Lawyer Jan. 2013.

[ emphais added by Robert Whiston ]

What is the best parenting plan for most children of divorce  ? Should infants and toddlers spend overnight time with their non-residential parent  ?

If not, why not  ?  If so, how much time ?

Is shared residential custody better for children than living with one parent and varying amounts of time living with their other parent – mainly at weekends  ?

Isn’t shared residential custody only successful for a small group of well-educated, higher income parents who have very cooperative, conflict free relationships – and who mutually agree to share without mediation, litigation or lawyers’ negotiations  ? [Addendum: See  "Twenty wasted years", 'joint custody' in the UK  pre-1989, http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/ - RW]

Since most married mothers do 80% of the childcare, after a divorce shouldn’t the children live that same proportion of time with her ?

Questions such as these generate a great deal of debate among the judiciary, policy makers and mental health professionals. Unfortunately they also generate myths and misconceptions that are frequently presented as “the research” at conferences and seminars, on the web, or in non-academic articles.

Exaggerated findings

At best, these myths far over-reach and exaggerate the findings from only a few of the existing studies. At worst, they have virtually no grounding whatsoever in current research. Either way, misconceptions that are not grounded on a broad spectrum of recent, methodologically sound, statistically significant empirical data have an impact on custody decisions and custody laws.

By empirical data I mean research studies where quantitative data has been statistically analyzed and published in peer-reviewed academic journals – in contrast to articles where opinions or theories are being presented, often without benefit of peer review. Regrettably we social scientists have done a poor job sharing the empirical research with other professionals or with divorcing parents.

As a result, a handful of studies – often outdated or seriously flawed methodologically – are widely disseminated as “the research”. In that spirit, this abbreviated overview presents recent research that refutes ten of the most common beliefs related to child custody.

[Addendum:  Myths like Lenore Weitzman's bogus 'statistic' that women’s living standards fell by 73% after divorce but that men's increased by 42% . A falsehood repeated in 348 social science articles and 250 law review articles - RW] .

• It is better for the children if parenting time is allocated according to the amount of time each parent spent in childcare during the marriage. Since most married mothers do at least 80% of the childcare, the parenting time should be allocated accordingly.

This perspective, referred to as the approximation rule, is not based on empirical research. This is a debatable opinion – a controversial point of view that has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed journals. A full discussion of this debate is provided in Richard Warshak’s article in the Baltimore Law Review 1.

Several facts must be recalled when dealing with articles that feature the approximation proposal. First, most married couples are more equally sharing the parenting time. Employed fathers spend roughly 60 minutes on weekdays with the children while employed moms spend 90 minutes. This would be the equivalent of 120 overnights with a father after divorce. 2

Modern fathers

Fathers under the age of 30 do only 45 minutes less childcare on workdays than mothers do. In two national surveys with 2,000 parents, Dads spent 33 hours a week with the children and mothers spent 50. Children under the age of 6 require 3 times as much parenting time as older children. And whichever parent gets home from work first or works the fewest hours generally does more of the childcare.

The more time the mother works outside the home, the more time the father spends with the children. But the mothers who are most likely to stay home full-time with preschoolers are the most poorly educated women who could not earn enough, if working, to pay for child care.

Elephant in the room

Second, married parents’ arrangements for their young children are temporary – they are not intended, as are custody orders, to remain in place until the children reach 18 years of age. Third, childcare hours are not synonymous with parenting. The fact that one parent spends more time with the children does not mean that the other parent is doing less parenting or that his or her daily presence is any less beneficial and essential.

• Infants and toddlers have one primary “attachment figure” to whom they bond more strongly and at an earlier age than they do with their other parent. Given this, they should not be separated from their primary parent for long periods of time –especially not to spend overnight time with their father, except on rare occasion for short periods of time.

The prevailing view among most contemporary attachment researchers and child development experts is that there is not one “primary” attachment figure. Instead, infants form strong attachments to both parents and at roughly the same time.

Whatever initial preferences infants might have for one parent disappears by 18 months of age. This is not to say that all researchers agree on this point. Nevertheless, recent empirical research is undermining the traditional beliefs about primary and secondary parents – the belief that an infant’s relationship with the mother is more vital than with the fathers. 3, 4

• Most infants and toddlers become more irritable or show other signs of maladjustment when they spend overnight time with their fathers. Given this, there should be little or no over-nighting [sleepovers] for infants and toddlers.

There are only seven studies that have assessed over-nighting and non-overnighting infants and preschoolers. None of them found statistically significant differences in irritability or other measures of maladjustment related to over-nighting per se. Given the confusion and debate on this issue, it is worth providing more details of these studies.

Four studies were conducted 15 to 21 years ago. The first assessed 25 one to five year olds who lived half time with each parent. At the end of one year, those children whose behaviour and developmental progress had gotten worse were the ones who had violent, alcoholic, inattentive, or otherwise very dysfunctional parents. The researchers also noted:

• “The most surprising finding was that children below the age of three were able to handle the many transitions in their overnight joint custody arrangements.”5

The second study included 25 children under the age of two and 120 ages two to five when their parents separated. Four years later, those who had lived 30% time with their fathers were better off on all measures of emotional, psychological and behavioral well-being. Moreover 40% of those who had not spent overnight time before the age of three with their fathers no longer had any contact with him – a loss that occurred for only 1.5% of the overnighting children.6

The third study compared infants 12 to 20 months old: those who spent any overnight time with their fathers, those who spent none, and those who lived with married parents. The infants were classified as having a secure, avoidant, ambivalent or disorganized attachment to their mother. A year later 85% of them were assessed again. Regardless of family type, the less securely attached infants had mothers who were unresponsive to their needs. And there were no significant differences in attachment classifications between those who overnighted and those who did not.7

The fourth study included 18 three to five-year olds. At the end of two years, those who had lived with their fathers ten days a month were more well-adjusted emotionally and no different on social or behavioral adjustment. Moreover, the number living this often with their fathers increased from 25% to 38% over the two years.8

Two studies have been conducted more recently. Interestingly, the one that was not peer-reviewed or published in an academic journal before being released by the Australian government has generated considerable attention among mental health practitioners, the legal profession and policy makers. Indeed, it is widely cited as evidence that overnighting is bad for young children.9

The limitations of this report have been enumerated by a number of internationally renowned researchers.10* For example, the sample sizes in several groups were very small and the vast majority of parents had never been married to each other. Leaving aside its limitations, for children from infancy to age five, there were very few differences between those who never over-nighted ['sleepovers'] and those who over-nighted. The mean scores were similar on measures of irritability, global health, monitoring their mother, negative response to strangers, developmental concerns, behavioral problems, emotional functioning and persistence.

The four to five years olds who overnighted more than nine nights a month had more attention deficit disorders according the their mothers. But this may very well be linked more to gender than to overnighting. That is, boys were more likely than girls to be overnighting frequently – and boys in the general population are more likely than girls to have attention deficit disorders.11

The most methodologically sound study at Yale University is part of an ongoing project. This study assessed 132 children ages two to six whose divorced and never married parents had separated. Of these, 31% spent one overnight a week with their fathers, 44% more than one and 25% none. For the two to four years olds, the overnighters were no different from non-over-nighters in respect to sleep problems, anxiety, aggression or social withdrawal. They were, however, less persistent in completing tasks. According to their fathers, but not their mothers, the overnighters were more irritable. Overall then, the differences were small. For the four to six year olds, however, the overnighters had fewer problems than the other children – especially the girls. As the researchers conclude:

•  “Overnights did not benefit or cause distress to the toddlers and benefited the 4 to 6 year olds” (p. 135).12

The final study assessed 24 children ages one to six who overnighted an average of eight nights a month. Almost 55% were classified as having an insecure attachment to their mother, which is higher than the average of 33% in the general population. Age when the overnights began and parent conflict were not related to the classifications, but mothers’ attentiveness or inattentiveness were.13

Taken together, these seven studies do not support the assertion that overnighting has a negative impact on infants or preschoolers.

• Most children want to live with only one parent and to have only one home. Shared residential parenting is not worth the hassle, according to most children. The vast majority of children who lived with their mothers after their parents’ divorce disliked having so little time with their fathers.14*

In contrast, the vast majority who have lived in shared residential parenting families say the inconvenience of living in two homes was worth it – primarily because they were able to maintain strong relationships with both parents.15

• When there is high verbal conflict between the parents, children do better when their time with their father is limited. Because more time with their father increases parents’ conflicts, children in shared residential custody are more often caught in the middle of conflicts.

With the exception of an on-going pattern of physical conflict or violence, the vast majority of studies do not support these beliefs.16-18* In married and in divorced families, parent conflict is generally related to worse outcomes for the children. However, in regard to custody and conflict, three findings stand out.

• First, conflict generally remains higher in sole than in shared custody families – especially if the residential parenting time is not shared.
• Second, most children are not exposed to more conflict or put in the middle more often in shared parenting families.
• Third, most children in shared residential custody and those who see their fathers frequently are better off on measures of well-being even when their parents have ongoing conflict.

In other words, maintaining strong relationships with both parents helps diminish the negative impact of the parents’ conflicts.

• The amount of conflict should be a primary factor when deciding how to allocate the parenting time.

Unless there is a history of physical abuse or violence, for the reasons just presented, high verbal conflict should not be used as a reason to limit parenting time.

Not only can much of this conflict be reduced through parenting programs, but the conflict generally declines by the end of the first year or so after separation. Especially during custody negotiations, conflict is not a reliable predictor of future conflict. Moreover, verbal conflict is associated with fewer negative outcomes for children than having too little fathering time.19, 20*

• Both parents have to mutually agree to share the residential parenting, otherwise these families will fail. Shared parenting agreements fail if they result from mediation, litigation or legal negotiations. It only succeeds for a small, self-selected group who are very cooperative and have little or no conflict.

In the studies that have examined how parents arrived at their shared residential parenting plan, from 20% – 85% of the parents had not initially wanted to share.

For many families where the children were successfully living in two homes, the shared parenting plan was a compromise brought about through mediation, litigation, or lawyers’ negotiations. 21*

• Most shared residential families fail. The children end up living with one parent anyway.

Measured anywhere from 2 to 4 years after divorce, 65% – 90% of these families were still sharing the residential custody. 22

• The quality of children’s relationships with their fathers is not related to how much time they spend together after the divorce.

Fathering time, especially time that is not limited mainly to weekends or to other small parcels of time, is closely associated with the quality and the endurance of the father-children relationship. This kind of fathering time is highly correlated with positive outcomes for children of divorce. 23, 24*

In considering the large body of recent empirical research that refutes these ten myths, it is worth remembering that people can always find some study that will support each of these beliefs. Some may be based on very old data. Others are methodologically unsound. Sometimes differences that are not statistically significant are reported as “a trend”, or “a difference” or “suggestive of”. To be sure, all studies have certain limitations, including those cited in this review.

But by using the social science search engines at university libraries to find the recent peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, we maximize our chances of finding the general consensus among the most respected researchers. By sharing more of this research with legislators, mental health workers, judges and lawyers, children and their divorced parents will be better served.

Footnotes

1 Warshak, R. (2011) Parenting by the clock: The best interst of the child standard and the approximation rule. Baltimore Law Review 41, 85-163.

2 Bianchi, S., Robinson, J., and Milkie, M. Changing rythyms of the American family (2006) Sage, New York.

3 Special issue on attachment and divorce (July, 2012). Family Court Review.

4 Newland, L., Freeman, H., and Coyle, D. Emerging Topics on Father Attachment (2011) Routledge, New York.

5 McKinnon, R., and Wallerstein, J. (1987) Joint custody and the pre-school child. Conciliation Courts Review 25, 39-47.

6 Maccoby, E., and Mnookin, R. Dividing the child (1992) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

7 Solomon, J., and George, L. (1999) The effects on attachment of overnight visitation on divorced and separated families: A longitudinal follow up. In Attachment Disorganization in Atypical Populations (Solomon, J. G. L., Ed.) pp 243-264, Guilford, New York.

8 Kline, M., Tschann, J., Johnston, J., and Wallerstein, J. (1989) Children’s adjustment in joint and sole physical custody families. Developmental Psychology 25, 430-438.

9 McIntosh, J., Smyth, B., Kelaher, M., and Wells, Y. L. C. (2010) Post separation parenting arrangements: outcomes for infants and children. Australian Government, Sydney, Australia.

10 Parkinson, P., and Cashmore, J. (2011) Parenting arrangements for young children: Messages for research. Australian Journal of Family Law 25, 236-257.

11 Kerns, S., and Prinz, R. (2012) Co-parenting children with attention deficit disorders and disruptive behavior disorders.

In Parenting plan evaluations: applied research for the family court (Kuehnle, K., and Drozd, L., Eds.) pp 330-369.

12 Pruett, M., Ebling, R., and Insabella, G. (2004) Critical aspects of parenting plans for young children. Family Court Review 42, 39-59.

13 Altenhofen, S., Sutherland, K., and Biringen, Z. (2010) Families experiencing divorce: Age at onset of overnight stays as predictors of child attachment. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 51, 141-156.

14 Kelly, J. (2012) Risk and protective factors for children of divorce. In Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (Kuehnle, K., and Drozd, L., Eds.) pp 145-173, Oxford University Press, New York.

15 Nielsen, L. (2013) Shared Residential Custody: A recent research review. American Journal of Family Law (forthcoming issue).

16 Lamb, M., and Kelly, J. (2009) Improving the quality of parent child contact in separating families with infants and young children. In The scientific basis of child custody decisions (Levy, R., kraus, L., and Levy, J., Eds.) pp 187-214, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

17 Deutsch, R., and Pruett, M. (2009) Child adjustment and high conflict divorce. In The scientific basis of child custody decisions (Levy, R., kraus, L., and Levy, J., Eds.) pp 353-375, Wiley, New York.

18 Johnston, J., Roseby, V., and Kuehnle, K. In the name of the child: Understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce (2009) Springer, New York.

19 Lamb, M. (2012) Critical analysis of research on parenting plans and children’s well-being. In Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (Kuehnle, K., and Drozd, L., Eds.) pp 214-246, Oxford University Press, New York. 20 Birnbaum, R., and Bala, N. (2010) Toward the differentiation of high conflict families: An analysis of social science research and Canadian case law. Family Court Review 48, 403-416.

21 Nielsen, L. (2011) Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared residential parenting research. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 52, 586-609.

22 Melli, M., and Brown, P. (2008) Exploring a new family form the shared time family. International Journal of Law, Policy and Family 22, 231-269.

23 Amato, P., and Dorius, C. (2012) Fathers, children and divorce. In The Role of the Father in Child Development (Lamb, M., Ed.) pp 177-201, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

24 Aquilino, W. (2010) Non-custodial father child relationship from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 68, 929-945.

E N D

Patricia Morgan – the case for less government

Families thrive with no Gov’t

The family thrives in countries in which the government doesn’t interfere with it, according to a new international comparison of family policy published by the independent think-tank Civitas.

The following is based on infomration taken from a Civitas pubication.

Family does best when governments don’t try to nationalise child-rearing
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs43.php
.

Three models: Sweden, Italy and Britain

“Family Policy, Family Changes: Sweden, Italy and Britain Compared”, by Patricia Morgan (pub’d Dec. 2006), compares the state of the family in secular Sweden, Catholic Italy and Britain. One of the most striking points of comparison is the extent to which the state interferes in family life, especially the rearing of children, in each of the countries.

Sweden

Sweden is famous for its comprehensive, top-down, social engineering, which makes it difficult for people to live in any other way than that prescribed by the state. Initially in response to concerns about falling population:

• ‘the state took on, and socialised, many family responsibilities to a degree unseen outside of the Soviet bloc, not least the rearing of children in crèches (p.29)…. This has involved the comprehensive political control of family life, where Sweden has made just about the most concerted attempt in history to engineer the freedom of women from child-rearing responsibilities and the demise of the traditional family through economic manipulation, social pressures, and massive public re-education’ (p.19).

Supposedly to get women to have more children, the state undertook a massive programme to ensure that all women would be able to work, regardless of whether they had children or not, and would be treated exactly the same as men. There was no recognition of marriage, so single parents would theoretically suffer no disadvantage as a result of their status, nor was there any recognition of the division of labour and responsibilities within the home. Women and men, whether married or not, were treated as individuals by the state. This meant that a combination of high taxes and benefits linked to workforce participation made it almost impossible for mothers to stay at home while fathers went out to work to support their families.

Italy

The Italian situation is almost the complete opposite. Under Fascism, women were used to breed soldiers, with marriage and baby bonuses, and a prohibition on women in the workforce. As a result, pro-family public policies are more strongly linked to extreme militarism in Italy than almost anywhere in the world. People neither want nor expect the state to do anything to support families, and this is compounded by the Catholic church’s traditional view that the family should be outside the state’s sphere of influence – and that includes financial support for the family (p.81). As a result, Italy is one of only three EU countries (the other two are Greece and Spain) that have no universal child or family allowances. Family allowances in Italy are means-tested and are extremely low by European standards (pp.84-5).

Britain

The British situation is different again, although it is much closer to Sweden than Italy under Gordon Browne’s regime that treats people as units of production rather than unique individuals. Theoretically the state supports the family by supporting individuals in whatever choices they make, without discriminating in favour of any one family type. In fact, as Patricia Morgan shows, the system is so heavily skewed in favour of lone-parent and two-earner families that life is made difficult for single-earner, two-parent families, as in Sweden. ‘The lone parent is the family form preferred by the tax/benefit system’ (p.113).

• ‘There is also a tacit anti-marriage agenda. The abolitionists [of marriage] now dominate or control the organisations, not least the university departments and the government-sponsored quangos or front organisations, dealing with research, advice and policy making in the area of family matters.’ (p.112).

Patricia Morgan suggests that the promotion of policies to undermine the traditional family, like the scrapping of the Marriage Allowance and the transfer of rights and obligations which used to pertain to marriage to all relationships, is part of New Labour’s programme of increased state control of our private lives:

• ‘This is why totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century found themselves on a collision course with families and often preferred promiscuity and lone parenthood, since there are no boundaries and barriers here to state intervention. Anarchy and despotism are two sides of the same coin, and collectivism exists alongside a permissive, hedonistic and solipsistic private morality… A Children’s Minister (Margaret Hodge) insists that “it is not a question of whether we should intrude in family life, but how and when-and we have to constantly remain focused on our purpose: to strengthen and support families so that they can enjoy their opportunities and help provide opportunities for their children”. The “support” is to ensure that people conform to the government’s norms. It is not to help parents achieve what they think is right’ (p.118).

What are the outcomes?

Patricia Morgan compares the outcomes of these different approaches. Britain is well known for its family problems. It tops the league tables in several of the most worrying indicators of breakdown, such as divorce and teenage pregnancy. Sweden has even higher rates of out-of-wedlock births (55%) and cohabitation (15% of couples) than Britain. Italy, however, with no government programme of intervention on behalf of the family, is still the home of the traditional family. Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births, including teenage pregnancies, are extremely low. Cohabitation is so rare as to be difficult to measure. Young people live with their parents until they get married, and, for most women, marriage will represent their first living-together relationship. (Table 2, pp.8-10.)

The Swedish surprise: a thick glass ceiling

Some of Patricia Morgan’s most surprising findings relate to Sweden, which is not the paradise of open relationships and free love that some advocates claim. Despite its massive programme of social engineering over several decades, Sweden has not managed to eliminate the problems that are associated with non-marriage and out-of-wedlock childbearing. In Sweden, as everywhere else in the world, lone parents and their children are more likely to experience poverty and ill health. Marriage is good for men and women and divorce has negative consequences, including higher suicide rates – and Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the EU after Finland. Perhaps the most surprising finding, given that Sweden’s population-boosting policies were gift-wrapped as measures to promote gender equality, is that women are not only failing to achieve equality in the workforce, they are experiencing more inequality than in most other countries:

• ‘Compared with the USA, UK and Germany, Sweden has the most gender-segregated workforce. Indeed, it is more gender-segregated than Asian countries like China, Hong Kong and India. Only the Islamic Middle East and Africa, and certain developing countries, have similar or higher levels of occupational segregation… Sweden has a larger glass-ceiling problem than the USA, where family-friendly policies are almost non-existent’ (p.55).

The measures introduced by the state to get women into the workforce may actually be keeping them out of it, or preventing them from achieving equal outcomes with men. Generous maternity leave of two-and-a-half years per child, topped up with lavish sick-leave provisions once mothers return to work, make employers wary of taking on women, or of giving them responsible jobs. The female workforce in Sweden has been described as a ‘Potemkin workforce’ because on any given day 20 per cent of all female workers are off on some kind of paid leave. In the public sector it is 30 per cent, and for mothers of children under three, the proportion is 48 per cent (p.57).

In spite of all the social engineering, women do not regard work as the most important thing in their lives. ‘Women continue to perform the larger part of unpaid household domestic duties (p.59)… Three-quarters of fathers and two-thirds of mothers still believed in the 1980s that men should be the principal breadwinners’ (p.60). Patricia Morgan criticises the feminist activists who see every woman’s life in terms of her ‘career’:

• ‘Most people have jobs, not careers, and such statements are made by professional elites who want to recast the world in their own image; one where every woman is a Patricia Hewitt doppelganger’ (p.89).

‘Family Policy, Family Changes: Sweden, Italy and Britain Compared’ by Patricia Morgan is published by Civitas, 77 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2EZ,, www.civitas.org.uk, at £14.00 plus £2.50 p&p.

A second “Prague Spring” ?

The ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968 saw for the briefest of time a Czechoslovakian flirtation with liberty and democracy. It was a short-lived flirtation, crushed at birth by Moscow’s iron fist and ending with a Soviet invasion and the old political order reestablished.

Lower house passes amended family law
ČTK | 22 June 2011

Prague, June 21 (CTK) – Shared care of children should be more frequent after the parents’ divorce under an amendment to the family law that the Czech Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of parliament, passed Tuesday.

According to the legislation, courts should always order shared care if both parents want to look after the child and are capable of it and if it is in the child’s interest.

The amendment also modifies the deadline for paternity denial, on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s verdict.

The amendment was supported by deputies across the parties.

Its opponents point out that children in shared care must change their home constantly which is not positive for their healthy development.

Government human rights commissioner Monika Simunkova Tuesday also criticised the amendment. Every case needs an individual approach, she said.

The centre-right government also raised objections to the bill, pointing out that the court should take the child’s wish into consideration before deciding on shared care.

Without meeting this condition, the Czech Republic may violate the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, the government says.

The amendment’s author Pavel Stanek (senior government Civic Democrats, ODS), for his part, stressed that Czech courts usually place children in the custody of their mother without justifying the decision.

About 90 percent of children end up in the mother’s care after divorce in the Czech Republic, while shared care is applied in about 3 percent of cases only, he recalled.

The amendment also changes the deadline for paternity denial from the current six months after the baby’s birth to six months since the man starts suspecting that he is not the biological father, but maximally until the child’s three years of age.

This regulation should apply only to children born in wedlock.

Copyright 2011 by the Czech News Agency (ČTK). All rights reserved.

Copying, dissemination or other publication of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent of ČTK is expressly forbidden. The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content.

UK Children win legal right to see both parents after divorce

Children win legal right to see both parents after divorce (UK Telegraph, 2 February 2012) .

EGMR verurteilt Österreich im Sorgerechtsverfahren wegen Diskriminierung eines unverheiratete Vater (EGMR, Sporer vs Österreich, 3-2-2011)

Ausschluss einer gerichtlichen Einzelfallprüfung der Sorgerechtsregelung diskriminiert Vater eines unehelichen Kindes

Bronne: Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR), Pressemitteilung des Kanzlers, No. 092, 03.02.2011

In einem heutigen Kammerurteil im Fall Sporer gegen Österreich (Beschwerde-Nr. 35637/03), das noch nicht rechtskräftig ist [1], stellte der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte einstimmig fest, dass eine Verletzung von Artikel 14 (Diskriminierungsverbot) in Verbindung mit Artikel 8 (Recht auf Achtung des Familienlebens) der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention vorlag.

Der Fall betraf die Beschwerde des Vaters eines unehelichen Kindes über das Verfahren um das Sorgerecht für seinen Sohn.

Zusammenfassung des Sachverhalts

Der Beschwerdeführer, Gerald Sporer, ist österreichischer Staatsangehöriger, 1976 geboren, und lebt in Schalchen. Im Mai 2000 wurde sein Sohn K. unehelich geboren. Die Mutter des Kindes lebte zu diesem Zeitpunkt im selben Haus wie Herr Sporer, der in einer anderen Wohnung mit seiner langjährigen Partnerin und ihrem gemeinsamen Sohn zusammenlebte. Im ersten Lebensjahr K.’s kümmerten sich Herr Sporer und K.’s Mutter abwechselnd um das Kind und nahmen nacheinander Erziehungsurlaub.

Nachdem K.’s Mutter im Januar 2002 ausgezogen war, beantragte Herr Sporer beim Bezirksgericht die Übertragung des alleinigen Sorgerechts auf sich mit dem Argument, dass K.’s Mutter nicht angemessen in der Lage sei, sich um das Kind zu kümmern. K.’s Mutter stellte sich der Übertragung des Sorgerechts entgegen und das Jugendamt vertrat die Auffassung, dass beide Eltern in der Lage seien, sich um das Kind zu kümmern. In einer mündlichen Verhandlung vor dem Bezirksgericht einigten sich die Parteien zunächst, dass K. bis zu einer Entscheidung mit beiden Elternteilen jeweils die halbe Woche verbringen würde. Ein auf Antrag Herrn Sporers vom Gericht berufener kinderpsychologischer Sachverständiger vertrat in einem Gutachten, das in einer zweiten Gerichtsverhandlung erörtert wurde, dass K.’s Mutter unreif und nicht in der Lage sei, sich um das Kind zu kümmern. Ein anschließend vom Gericht berufener zweiter Sachverständiger widersprach dieser Einschätzung. Ein dritter Sachverständiger bestätigte in einem Obergutachten die Auffassung des zweiten Gutachters und vertrat, dass das Kindeswohl durch den Verbleib des Sorgerechts bei der Mutter nicht gefährdet sei. Herr Sporer machte nicht von der Möglichkeit Gebrauch, eine schriftliche Stellungnahme einzureichen, beantragte aber die Erörterung des Gutachtens in einer weiteren Verhandlung.

Sobald ein Urteil rechtskräftig ist, wird es dem Ministerkomitee des Europarats übermittelt, das die Umsetzung der Urteile überwacht. Weitere Informationen zum Verfahren der Umsetzung finden sich hier: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.

Das Gericht lehnte den Antrag Herrn Sporers auf Übertragung des alleinigen Sorgerechts im Dezember 2002 ohne eine weitere Verhandlung ab und verwies darauf, dass das alleinige Sorgerecht nach dem Allgemeinen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch automatisch der Mutter zufalle, es sei denn, das Kindeswohl würde dadurch gefährdet. Das Landesgericht Ried bestätigte die Entscheidung und der Oberste Gerichtshof lehnte die Berufung Herrn Sporers dagegen im Juni 2003 ab. K.’s Mutter hat weiterhin das alleinige Sorgerecht für das Kind, während Herr Sporer Recht auf Umgang mit ihm gemäß einer vom Gericht empfohlenen Regelung hat.

Beschwerde, Verfahren und Zusammensetzung des Gerichtshofs

Unter Berufung auf Artikel 6 § 1 (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren) machte Herr Sporer geltend, dass ihm das Bezirksgericht nicht die Möglichkeit gegeben habe, in einer mündlichen Verhandlung zu dem entscheidenden Obergutachten Stellung zu nehmen. Unter Berufung auf Artikel 8 (Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens) in Verbindung mit Artikel 14 (Diskriminierungsverbot) sah er sich zudem nach dem Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch als Vater eines unehelichen Kindes diskriminiert, zum einen gegenüber der Mutter, da er gegen deren Willen keine Möglichkeit habe, das gemeinsame Sorgerecht zu erhalten, und zum anderen gegenüber verheirateten und geschiedenen Vätern, da diese nach Trennung oder Scheidung von der Kindsmutter das gemeinsame Sorgerecht behalten könnten.

Die Beschwerde wurde am 12. November 2003 beim Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte eingelegt.

Das Urteil wurde von einer Kammer mit sieben Richtern gefällt, die sich wie folgt zusammensetzte:

• Christos Rozakis (Griechenland), Präsident,
• Nina Vajić (Kroatien),
• Anatoly Kovler (Russland),
• Elisabeth Steiner (Österreich),
• Khanlar Hajiyev (Aserbaidschan),
• Giorgio Malinverni (Schweiz),
• George Nicolaou (Zypern), Richter,

• und Søren Nielsen, Sektionskanzler.

Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs

Artikel 6 § 1

Der Gerichtshof stellte fest, dass Herr Sporer das Recht auf eine Verhandlung hatte, da keinerlei außerordentliche Umstände vorgelegen hatten, die den Verzicht darauf gerechtfertigt hätten; noch betraf das Verfahren lediglich formale oder rein rechtliche Fragen. Zudem stellt der persönliche Eindruck der Eltern in einem Sorgerechtsverfahren einen wichtigen Aspekt dar.

Der Gerichtshof stellte weiterhin fest, dass vor dem Bezirksgericht zwei Verhandlungen, eine zur Vorbreitung und eine weitere in der Sache, stattgefunden hatten. Sie hatten es dem Gericht ermöglicht, einen persönlichen Eindruck beider Parteien zu gewinnen, und den Parteien die Gelegenheit gegeben, die verschiedenen Gesichtspunkte des Falls zu erörtern. Der Gerichtshof zeigte sich vom Argument des Bezirksgerichts überzeugt, dass eine weitere Verhandlung nicht notwendig gewesen sei, da das dritte Sachverständigengutachten schlüssig und alle Sach- und Rechtsfragen hinreichend geklärt gewesen seien. Es gibt keinen Anhaltspunkt dafür, dass Herr Sporer nicht weitere schriftliche Stellungnahmen hätte einreichen können, sofern er dies gewünscht hätte

Das entscheidende Obergutachten war adversatorisch auf Grundlage von Interviews und schriftlichen Stellungnahmen beider Parteien erstellt worden.

Der Gerichtshof kam daher zu dem Schluss, dass keine Verletzung von Artikel 6 § 1 vorlag.

Artikel 14 in Verbindung mit Artikel 8
Der Gerichtshof unterstrich zunächst, dass, wie zwischen den Parteien unumstritten war, die Beziehung Herrn Sporers zu seinem Sohn angesichts der Tatsache, dass er Erziehungsurlaub genommen und sich weiterhin regelmäßig um ihn gekümmert hatte, als „Familienleben“ im Sinne von Artikel 8 zu gelten hat.

Im Verfahren um das Sorgerecht für Herrn Sporers Sohn hatten die österreichischen Gerichte nicht darüber zu befinden gehabt, ob ein gemeinsames Sorgerecht im Kindeswohlinteresse läge, da für die gerichtliche Prüfung dieser Frage nach dem österreichischen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch die Zustimmung der Mutter erforderlich war; K.’s Mutter hatte ihre Zustimmung dazu aber nicht gegeben. Die Gerichte hatten auch nicht darüber zu entscheiden, welcher Elternteil besser in der Lage wäre, das Sorgerecht auszuüben. Sie hatten lediglich festzustellen, ob K.’s Mutter das Kindeswohl gefährdete. Auf Grundlage des entscheidenden Obergutachtens hatten sie den Antrag Herrn Sporers auf Übertragung des alleinigen Sorgerechts abgelehnt. Folglich lag hinsichtlich der Zuweisung des Sorgerechts eine Ungleichbehandlung Herrn Sporers in seiner Eigenschaft als Vater eines unehelichen Kindes gegenüber der Mutter, und zugleich gegenüber verheirateten Vätern, vor.

Im Hinblick auf die anfängliche Zuweisung des Sorgerechts für ein uneheliches Kind an dessen Mutter sah der Gerichtshof keinen Grund, zu einem anderen Schluss zu kommen als im Fall Zaunegger gegen Deutschland. [2] In diesem Fall hatte er befunden, dass, sofern keine gemeinsame Sorgeerklärung vorliegt, eine solche Regelung gerechtfertigt ist, um zu gewährleisten, dass das Kind ab seiner Geburt eine Person hat, die klar als gesetzlicher Vertreter handeln kann.

Im Fall Zaunegger hatte der Gerichtshof allerdings nicht die Annahme geteilt, dass ein gemeinsames Sorgerecht gegen den Willen der Mutter grundsätzlich dem Kindeswohl zuwiderlaufe. Zwar gibt es in den Europaratsmitgliedstaaten keine einheitliche rechtliche Herangehensweise an die Frage, ob Väter unehelicher Kinder das Recht haben, das gemeinsame Sorgerecht auch gegen den Willen der Mutter zu beantragen. In einer Mehrheit der Staaten müssen sich Sorgerechtsentscheidungen allerdings am Kindeswohlinteresse orientieren und im Fall eines Konflikts zwischen den Eltern gerichtlich überprüft werden. Das österreichische Recht sah im Fall Herrn Sporers keinerlei gerichtliche Prüfungsmöglichkeiten der Frage vor, ob ein gemeinsames Sorgerecht im Kindeswohlinteresse läge, oder ob ihm, falls das gemeinsame Sorgerecht diesem Interesse zuwiderliefe, besser durch die Zuweisung des Sorgerechts an die Mutter oder den Vater gedient wäre. Die österreichische Regierung hatte keine hinreichenden Gründe angegeben, warum die Situation Herrn Sporers, der seine Rolle als K.’s Vater von Anfang an angenommen hatte, weniger gerichtliche Prüfungsmöglichkeiten zulassen sollte als diejenige von Vätern, die zunächst das Sorgerecht hatten und sich später von der Kindesmutter trennten oder scheiden ließen. Folglich lag eine Verletzung von Artikel 14 in Verbindung mit Artikel 8 vor.

Artikel 41
Nach Artikel 41 (gerechte Entschädigung) entschied der Gerichtshof, dass Österreich Herrn Sporer 3.500 Euro für die entstandenen Kosten zu zahlen hat. Der Gerichtshof entschied außerdem, dass die Feststellung einer Verletzung der Konvention eine ausreichende gerechte Entschädigung für den erlittenen immateriellen Schaden darstellt.

Das Urteil liegt nur auf Englisch vor.

Fussnote:
[1] Gemäß Artikel 43 und 44 der Konvention ist dieses Kammerurteil nicht rechtskräftig. Innerhalb von drei Monaten nach der Urteilsverkündung kann jede Partei die Verweisung der Rechtssache an die Große Kammer beantragen. Liegt ein solcher Antrag vor, berät ein Ausschuss von fünf Richtern, ob die Rechtssache eine weitere Untersuchung verdient. Ist das der Fall, verhandelt die Große Kammer die Rechtssache und entscheidet durch ein endgültiges Urteil. Lehnt der Ausschuss den Antrag ab, wird das Kammerurteil rechtskräftig.
[2] Zaunegger gegen Deutschland (22028/04) vom 3 Dezember 2009

Diese Pressemitteilung ist von der Kanzlei erstellt und für den Gerichtshof nicht bindend.

Medienartikel:
Ledige Väter diskriminiert: EGMR-Urteil gegen Österreich; Die Österreichische Presse | 03.02.2011

Österreichisches Familienrecht: Väterrechte, Strafen, Ehe light? Welche Reformen stehen an?; Die Österreichische Presse, Oktober 2010

New Brazilian Law 12 318 defines and punishes parental alienation

Breaking news: Brazil has ratified a law that defines and punishes parental alienation as a form of child abuse

On the 26th of August 2010 the Brazilian Parliament has ratified with immediate effect a law against parental alienation. The law defines parental alienation as a form of child abuse. It provides Brazilian judges and courts with seven measures to deal with parental alienation. Amongst those are fines, contrary custody and/or care and residence decisions and care supervision orders.

Below you will find the text of this new Brazilian law in an English translation and below that the Brazilian original text.

Peter Tromp
Father Knowledge Centre Europe

Brazilian Law 12 318 – Ratified law that defines and punishes parental alienation

Check below in full 12.318/10 law that provides for parental alienation.
_____________
LAW No. 12 318, DE 26 AUGUST 2010 Provides for parental alienation and amending Art. 236 of Law No. 8069 of 13

Ratified law that defines and punishes parental alienation in Brazil
26 August 2010

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Lei/L12318.htm

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BRAZILIAN REPUBLIC

Given the decrees of Congress promulgated the following law:

Article 1 This Law regulates the parental alienation.

Article 2 The parental alienation is considered an act of interference with the psychological training of the child or adolescent, promoted or induced by their parents or grandparents if the child or adolescent is under their authority, custody or supervision, and to result in less contemptuous behavior that impadiscano creating or maintaining links with the other parent. Examples of forms of parental alienation, as substantiated to the court or discovered by an expert, or charged directly with the testimony of third acts are aimed at:

I – open a campaign to ban the behavior of the parent exercising parenting;

II – impede the exercise of parental authority;

III – prevent contact of the child or adolescent with a parent;

IV – opposing the right to family life regulated;

V – deliberately omit relevant personal information to parents on the child or adolescent, including educational, medical and related changes of address;

VI – make false allegations against parents, against his family or against the grandparents in order to prevent or hinder their care to the child or adolescent;

VII – Change the address of residence without justification in order to prevent the attendance of the child or adolescent with the other parent, with his family or grandparents.

Article 3 The provision of an act of parental alienation hurts the fundamental right of the child or adolescent to enjoy a healthy family life, impedes the relationship of affection in relationships with parents and his family group, and is a form of abuse against moral the child or adolescent does not comply with the duties related to parental authority or guardianship or custody.

Article 4 In the face of evidence or documents indicated that parental alienation, the application of this Act at any time of the procedure, or incidentally in independent action, the court will determine, with urgency, after hearing the prosecutor, the transitional measures for the maintenance of ‘psychological integrity of the child or adolescent, including to ensure their familiarity with the parent or make a genuine rapprochement between the two, if any. The court will provide the child or adolescent and the parent a minimum guarantee of visits, except in cases where there is imminent risk of physical or psychological harm to the child or adolescent, certified by a professional designated by the judge in charge of monitoring visits .

Article 5 If there is evidence that they have been charged with acts of parental alienation incidental damages, the court, if necessary, to determine the bio-psychological consequences of child:

1 The expert report is based on extensive psychological assessment biopsychosocial or, where appropriate, including a personal interview with the parties, examination of documents in the case, the story of the couple’s relationship, the chronology of events The assessment of the personalities involved and the investigation as a child or teen may have developed symptoms of alienation against their parents.

2 examinations will be performed by professionals or experts in the multidisciplinary team, necessary in any case, as evidenced by appropriate academic or professional history to diagnose the acts of parental alienation.

3 The expert or a multidisciplinary team appointed to assess the presence of parental alienation will submit a report within 90 days, renewable only with judicial authorization based on a detailed explanation.

Article 6 In response to acts typical of parental alienation or against any behavior that hinders the coexistence of the child or adolescent with a parent’s parent, the court may, together or separately, to raise the subject of their civil or criminal liability arising, and have adequate tools to inhibit or mitigate the effects of alienation. He will, according to the severity of the case:

I – indicate the presence of parental alienation and to notify the parent;

II – expanding the system of family life for the alienated parent;

III – impose a fine on the alienating parent;

IV – require advice biopsychosocial;

V – lead to a change of custody from joint custody or its reversal;

VI – to elect a temporary residence of a child or adolescent;

VII – to declare the suspension of parental authority.

In the case of arbitrary change of address, or impracticability or obstruction to the family, the court may also reverse the requirement to remove the child from parents’ residence, during the alternating periods of family life.

Article 7 In case of assignment or change of custody will be given preference to the parent that allows efficient co-existence of the child or adolescent with the other parent, if the case can not be alternating.

Article 8 The change of domicile of the child or adolescent is irrelevant to the determination of responsibilities relating to claims based on right to family life, unless this is not the result of consensus between the parents or a court decision.

Article 9 (vetoed – amended – cash)

Article 10 (vetoed – amended – cash)

Article 11 This Law shall enter into force upon its publication.

Brasília, August 26, 2010,

189 ° and 122 ° of the independence of the Republic.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva

Luiz Paulo Teles Ferreira Barreto

Paulo de Tarso Vannuchi

Read more – News
* 20/11/2009 – CCJ’s Board approves action against a parent who incite hatred child – click here
* 18.08.2009 – Parental Alienation can lead to loss of custody of the child – click here

Read More – Articles
* 13/8/10 – The “syndrome” that will turn law – Nebo Flávia Azevedo Antunes – click here
* 23/7/10 – SAP – Parental Alienation Syndrome – Luiz Fernando Valley Guilherme de Almeida / André Fernando Reusing Namorato – click here
* 21/7/10 – Soon, parental alienation is a crime – Denise Perissini Maria da Silva – click here

————————————————

Lei 12.318 Sacionada lei que define e pune a alienação parental

Confira abaixo na íntegra a lei 12.318/10 que dispõe sobre a alienação parental.
_____________ LEI Nº 12.318, DE 26 DE AGOSTO DE 2010
Dispõe sobre a alienação parental e altera o art. 236 da Lei nº 8.069, de 13
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Lei/L12318.htm
http://www.migalhas.com.br/Quentes/17,MI116210,101048-Lula+sanciona+lei+que+determina+alienacao+parental+como+crime

Lei 12.318

Sacionada lei que define e pune a alienação parental

Confira abaixo na íntegra a lei 12.318/10 que dispõe sobre a alienação parental.

_____________

LEI Nº 12.318, DE 26 DE AGOSTO DE 2010

Dispõe sobre a alienação parental e altera o art. 236 da Lei nº 8.069, de 13 de julho de 1990.

O PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA

Faço saber que o Congresso Nacional decreta e eu sanciono a seguinte Lei:

Art. 1 Esta Lei dispõe sobre a alienação parental.

Art. 2 Considera-se ato de alienação parental a interferência na formação psicológica da criança ou do adolescente promovida ou induzida por um dos genitores, pelos avós ou pelos que tenham a criança ou adolescente sob a sua autoridade, guarda ou vigilância para que repudie genitor ou que cause prejuízo ao estabelecimento ou à manutenção de vínculos com este.

Parágrafo único. São formas exemplificativas de alienação parental, além dos atos assim declarados pelo juiz ou constatados por perícia, praticados diretamente ou com auxílio de terceiros:

I – realizar campanha de desqualificação da conduta do genitor no exercício da paternidade ou maternidade;

II – dificultar o exercício da autoridade parental;

III – dificultar contato de criança ou adolescente com genitor;

IV – dificultar o exercício do direito regulamentado de convivência familiar;

V – omitir deliberadamente a genitor informações pessoais relevantes sobre a criança ou adolescente, inclusive escolares, médicas e alterações de endereço;

VI – apresentar falsa denúncia contra genitor, contra familiares deste ou contra avós, para obstar ou dificultar a convivência deles com a criança ou adolescente;

VII – mudar o domicílio para local distante, sem justificativa, visando a dificultar a convivência da criança ou adolescente com o outro genitor, com familiares deste ou com avós.

Art. 3 A prática de ato de alienação parental fere direito fundamental da criança ou do adolescente de convivência familiar saudável, prejudica a realização de afeto nas relações com genitor e com o grupo familiar, constitui abuso moral contra a criança ou o adolescente e descumprimento dos deveres inerentes à autoridade parental ou decorrentes de tutela ou guarda.

Art. 4 Declarado indício de ato de alienação parental, a requerimento ou de ofício, em qualquer momento processual, em ação autônoma ou incidentalmente, o processo terá tramitação prioritária, e o juiz determinará, com urgência, ouvido o Ministério Público, as medidas provisórias necessárias para preservação da integridade psicológica da criança ou do adolescente, inclusive para assegurar sua convivência com genitor ou viabilizar a efetiva reaproximação entre ambos, se for o caso.

Parágrafo único. Assegurar-se-á à criança ou adolescente e ao genitor garantia mínima de visitação assistida, ressalvados os casos em que há iminente risco de prejuízo à integridade física ou psicológica da criança ou do adolescente, atestado por profissional eventualmente designado pelo juiz para acompanhamento das visitas.

Art. 5 Havendo indício da prática de ato de alienação parental, em ação autônoma ou incidental, o juiz, se necessário, determinará perícia psicológica ou biopsicossocial.

§ 1 O laudo pericial terá base em ampla avaliação psicológica ou biopsicossocial, conforme o caso, compreendendo, inclusive, entrevista pessoal com as partes, exame de documentos dos autos, histórico do relacionamento do casal e da separação, cronologia de incidentes, avaliação da personalidade dos envolvidos e exame da forma como a criança ou adolescente se manifesta acerca de eventual acusação contra genitor.

§ 2 A perícia será realizada por profissional ou equipe multidisciplinar habilitados, exigido, em qualquer caso, aptidão comprovada por histórico profissional ou acadêmico para diagnosticar atos de alienação parental.

§ 3 O perito ou equipe multidisciplinar designada para verificar a ocorrência de alienação parental terá prazo de 90 (noventa) dias para apresentação do laudo, prorrogável exclusivamente por autorização judicial baseada em justificativa circunstanciada.

Art. 6 Caracterizados atos típicos de alienação parental ou qualquer conduta que dificulte a convivência de criança ou adolescente com genitor, em ação autônoma ou incidental, o juiz poderá, cumulativamente ou não, sem prejuízo da decorrente responsabilidade civil ou criminal e da ampla utilização de instrumentos processuais aptos a inibir ou atenuar seus efeitos, segundo a gravidade do caso:

I – declarar a ocorrência de alienação parental e advertir o alienador;

II – ampliar o regime de convivência familiar em favor do genitor alienado;

III – estipular multa ao alienador;

IV – determinar acompanhamento psicológico e/ou biopsicossocial;

V – determinar a alteração da guarda para guarda compartilhada ou sua inversão;

VI – determinar a fixação cautelar do domicílio da criança ou adolescente;

VII – declarar a suspensão da autoridade parental.

Parágrafo único. Caracterizado mudança abusiva de endereço, inviabilização ou obstrução à convivência familiar, o juiz também poderá inverter a obrigação de levar para ou retirar a criança ou adolescente da residência do genitor, por ocasião das alternâncias dos períodos de convivência familiar.

Art. 7 A atribuição ou alteração da guarda dar-se-á por preferência ao genitor que viabiliza a efetiva convivência da criança ou adolescente com o outro genitor nas hipóteses em que seja inviável a guarda compartilhada.

Art. 8 A alteração de domicílio da criança ou adolescente é irrelevante para a determinação da competência relacionada às ações fundadas em direito de convivência familiar, salvo se decorrente de consenso entre os genitores ou de decisão judicial.

Art. 9 ( VETADO)

Art. 10. (VETADO)

Art. 11. Esta Lei entra em vigor na data de sua publicação.

Brasília, 26 de agosto de 2010; 189º da Independência e 122º da República.

LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA

Luiz Paulo Teles Ferreira Barreto

Paulo de Tarso Vannuchi

________________
____________

Leia mais – Notícias
* 20/11/09 – CCJ da Câmara aprova medidas contra pai ou mãe que incitar filho ao ódio – clique aqui
* 18/8/09 – Alienação Parental pode levar à perda da guarda da criança – clique aqui

Leia mais – Artigos
* 13/8/10 – A “síndrome” que virará lei – Flávia Nebó de Azevedo Antunes – clique aqui
* 23/7/10 – SAP – Síndrome da Alienação Parental – Luiz Fernando do Vale de Almeida Guilherme/André Fernando Reusing Namorato – clique aqui
* 21/7/10 – Em breve, alienação parental será crime – Denise Maria Perissini da Silva – clique aqui

The Divided World of the Child: Divorce and Long-Term Psychosocial Adjustment

• Traduit cette article en Francais: ‘Le monde divisé de l’enfant: le divorce et à long terme d’ajustement psychosocial’
• Ubersetze dieses Artikel im Deutsch: ‘Die geteilte Welt des Kindes: Scheidung und Long-Term psychosoziale Anpassung’
• Vertaal dit artikel naar het Nederlands: ‘De verdeelde wereld van het kind: Echtscheiding en psychosociale aanpassing op de lange termijn’

————————————————-
DIVIDED WORLD OF THE CHILD

The Divided World of the Child: Divorce and Long-Term Psychosocial Adjustment

Gordon E. Finley,
Florida International University

Seth J. Schwartz,
University of Miami

Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. The divided world of the child: Divorce and long-term psychosocial adjustment, 2010

Pdf-version: http://www.sethschwartz.info/pdfs/Divided_World_of_the_Child.pdf

___________________________

We are grateful to a number of graduate and undergraduate students for their help with data collection, entry, and management: Sandra Mira, Tara Sheehan, Mike Mira, Dax Rodriguez, Crystal Langlois, and Leif Elliott. We are also grateful to Ron Mullis for his help with off-site data collection.

Gordon E. Finley, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, University Park Campus, Miami, FL 33199. Seth J. Schwartz, Center for Family Studies, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to either author at the above addresses.

Electronic mail should be sent to finley@fiu.edu or to SSchwartz@med.miami.edu.

Abstract

This study evaluated the extent to which divorce creates the “divided world of the child,” as well as consequences of this “divided world” for long-term adjustment. An ethnically diverse sample of 1444 young-adult university students completed retrospective measures of parental nurturance and involvement, and current measures of psychosocial adjustment and troubled ruminations about parents. Results indicated that reports of maternal and paternal nurturance and involvement were closely related in intact families but uncorrelated in divorced families. Across family forms, the total amount of nurturance or involvement received was positively associated with self-esteem, purpose in life, life satisfaction, friendship quality and satisfaction, and academic performance; and negatively related to distress, romantic relationship problems, and troubled ruminations about parents. Mother-father differences in nurturance and involvement showed a largely opposite set of relationships. Implications for family court practices are discussed.

KEY WORDS: Divorce, adjustment, fathers, mothers, involvement, nurturance.

___________________________

It is well-established that divorce creates multiple adjustment issues for parents and children (Kelly, 2007). Following divorce, one parent – usually the father – generally becomes nonresident (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999). When the father leaves the child’s home, the child becomes part of two households instead of one. Becoming nonresident also often decreases a father’s involvement in his child’s life (Amato, 1998; Carlson, 2006), which leads to increased child distress (Schwartz, Finley, & Mira, in press-a). Whereas the intact family represents a system where both parents regulate the children’s lives, in the divorced family, the mother and father occupy “separate worlds,” and the child must reconcile these separate worlds (Marquardt, 2005). We refer to this situation as “the divided world of the child” (Finley, 2006).

The “divided world of the child” model inherently draws on family systems theory. Family systems theory holds that the larger family system holds family members together and causes their behaviors to be interrelated (Ng & Smith, 2006; White, 1999). In divorced families, the nonresident parent may no longer be an active member of the family system in which the child resides. In essence, divorce divides the former family system and creates multiple family systems, often with the child as the only common link between them (cf. Emery & Dillon, 1994).

Supporting the “divided world” thesis, reports of maternal and paternal involvement are reasonably correlated with one another in intact families (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000; White, 1999) but less so in divorced families (Maccoby, Buchanan, & Dornbusch, 1996; King & Sobolewski, 2006). The lack of correlation between maternal and paternal involvement suggests that “Mom’s World” and “Dad’s World” are separate and disconnected. Marquardt (2005), using qualitative interviews, found that many children of divorce portrayed “Mom’s World” and “Dad’s World” as divided and found this division distressing.

Although some intact families may also create a “divided world” (e.g., through parental psychopathology, work schedules, and competing interests and demands), the structural and legal parameters involved in the divorce process and its sequelae (e.g., nonresident parenting, visitation schedules) may be most likely to create the “divided world” effect by reducing one parent’s nurturance and involvement in the child’s life.

The present study was guided by two objectives. First, we examined the relationship between emerging adults’ retrospective reports of their mothers’ and fathers’ nurturance and involvement.

Family systems theory would predict that mothers’ and fathers’ nurturance/involvement would be positively interrelated in intact families because the larger system increases the relationship between maternal and paternal behaviors (cf. White, 1999). In divorced families, where parents are no longer housed within the same family system, perceptions of corresponding maternal and paternal parenting variables should be unrelated to one another (Buchanan et al., 1996; King & Sobolewski, 2006). The “divided world” effect in divorced families may therefore emerge as a result of removing the overarching family system that houses the child and both parents.

Second, not all divorces are equal in the extent to which they create a “divided world” (Harvey & Fine, 2004). Some divorced parents remain cordial with one another and create a relatively coherent environment for their children, whereas others are indifferent – or even hostile – toward one another. As a result, individual difference factors contribute to the “divided world” effect in both intact and divorced families. When examining effects across parents, it is important to examine both the total amount of involvement received from both parents, as well as the difference between the level of involvement received from one’s mother and father (cf. Beyers & Goossens, 2002). The “divided world” effect is therefore important to operationalize in two related ways. First, the difference in the extent of nurturance and involvement between parents corresponds closely to how Marquardt (2005) and others have characterized the “divided world” effect. Second, it is important to characterize precisely where this difference lies on the continuum of nurturance or involvement. A highly involved mother and a moderately involved father may be characterized by the same discrepancy as a moderately involved mother and an uninvolved father. However, these two scenarios are completely different in terms of the involvement that the child receives, and likely in terms of the consequences for the child’s long-term functioning. Although mothers tend to be more involved than fathers in most family activities, including childrearing (Craig, 2006; Dienhart, 2002), this difference – and thus the “divided world” effect – may be exacerbated in nonresident-father divorced families (Schwartz, Finley, & Mira, in press-b), presumably due to the structural factors related to post-divorce custody and visitation arrangements. The father’s decreased involvement may also signify reductions in the total amount of nurturance and involvement that the child receives.

Fourth, another aspect of the divided world hypothesis concerns the regulation of conflict (e.g., Marquardt, 2005). In divorced families, and in intact families where the parents are disconnected from one another, much of the conflict that has occurred between the parents becomes internalized within the child. This internalized conflict takes a number of forms, one of which we label troubled ruminations about parents (Schwartz et al., in press-a). That is, young people from divorced families may feel, to a greater extent than those from intact families, that one or both of their parents caused pain in their families, that the nonresident parent was not interested in spending time with them, that their parents may not have loved them, and that they are dissatisfied with their relationships with one or both parents (Fabricius, 2003; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000). In divorced families, there now are multiple family systems where there once was one. Thus, these systems may separate from one another as each parent forms a new family system separate from that of the other parent (cf. Arditti & Madden-Derdich, 1997).

Critically, these multiple family systems remain connected predominantly through the child, thereby placing the burden on the child for interfacing between these divergent family systems.

This may, in part, lead to troubled ruminations about one or both parents. A similar effect may occur in intact families where the “divided world” effect exists. In either case, troubled ruminations about parents are indicative of distress (cf. Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000).

Methodological Framework: Use of Retrospective Reports of Parenting

Our methodological framework is a blend of child-centered and multidimensional perspectives on parental nurturance and involvement. The primary premise of our research program is based on Rohner’s (1986) theory that children’s perceptions of their parents are uniquely predictive of later outcomes (see Khaleque & Rohner, 2002; Rohner & Britner, 2002; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005, for reviews). Our focus on multiple components of parental involvement is drawn from Hawkins and Palkovitz’s (1999) call for multidimensional understandings and measures of parent involvement (see Finley & Schwartz, 2004).

Our use of retrospective reports of parenting with emerging adult samples is consistent with a number of prior studies (e.g., Fabricius, 2003; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000). The retrospective method also is consistent with a view of emerging adulthood as a time of reflection and of looking back on one’s childhood and adolescence – including relationships with parents – in its entirety (Arnett, 2000; Warshak, 2003). Given that they are of legal age and may be freer than minors to express their true feelings and opinions, emerging adults may be in a unique position to characterize the totality of their relationships with their parents (Finley & Schwartz, 2007). This may be especially true in divorced families, where minors may still be involved in the family court system and may be less willing (or able) to speak their minds (Warshak, 2003).

Hypotheses

In evaluating the “divided world” hypothesis, we tested two predictions. First, consistent with family systems theory (White, 1999), we expected all of the corresponding mothering and fathering variables to correlate highly in intact families and negligibly or zero in divorced families. Second, we expected that high total amounts of perceived nurturance and involvement would be related to positive psychosocial outcomes. However, we also expected that the extent to which the child perceives her or his world as divided would be related to negative psychosocial outcomes as well as to troubled ruminations, especially about the father. We further expected that the extent to which the person’s world was perceived as divided would be greater in divorced families than in intact families.

Method

Participants

Data for the present study were taken from a recently collected dataset focusing on maternal and paternal nurturance and involvement (Finley, Mira, & Schwartz, 2008). Participants were 1375 emerging-adult university students (75% female; mean age 19.85, SD 3.46) from intact and divorced families and who identified both of their biological parents as their most important parent figures. Participants from divorced families were included as long as they did not report residing with their fathers at any time following their parents’ divorce. We did this because mothers are awarded primary physical custody in the vast majority of divorces, and because father-resident divorced families may be substantively different from other types of divorced families (Greif, 1995; Schwartz & Finley, 2005).

The present sample represents 80.2% of the total sample collected. Half of all participants (50%) were first-year students, with the remainder being sophomores (19%), juniors (17%), seniors (12%), or graduate students (2%). In terms of ethnicity, 58% of participants were Hispanic, 24% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were non-Hispanic Black, 5% were Asian, and 1% were Other. Most (81%) of the data were gathered at a public university in Miami where the majority of students are Hispanic, and the remainder were gathered at another public university in northern Florida that serves a largely non-Hispanic White student population. The majority (74%) of participants were born in the United States, whereas the majority of mothers (67%) and fathers (69%) were born abroad. The most common countries of origin for immigrant participants and parents were Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Jamaica.

Of the 1375 participants included in the present analyses, 75% (n = 1037) were from intact families, and 25% (n = 338) were from divorced families. The mean participant age at the time of divorce was 8.2 years (SD 5.2, range 0 to 22). Participants from the full dataset, but not included in these analyses, included those reporting the death of one or both parents (2.2%; n = 39), those rating a non-biological mother or father figure (9.5%; n = 162), those reporting that their parents had never been married (0.5%; n = 8), participants from divorced families who resided with their fathers at any time following divorce (4.0%; n = 69), and those who did not provide family form data (3.5%; n = 60).

Measures

Nurturant Mothering and Fathering. Adult children’s retrospective reports of parental nurturance were measured using the Nurturant Mothering and Fathering Scales (Finley et al., 2008; Finley & Schwartz, 2004). Each item is responded to on a five-point scale, with the scale endpoints varying as a function of item content. Sample items include “When you needed your father’s (mother’s) support, was he (she) there for you?” Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for scores on the nurturant mothering and fathering scales were .90 and .93, respectively. The factor structure of these items was equivalent across mothers and fathers (Finley et al., 2008).

Maternal and Paternal Involvement. Mother and father involvement were each assessed in 20 domains of parenting drawn primarily from Hawkins and Palkovitz (1999). Within each domain, we asked participants to indicate, on a scale of 1 (not at all involved) to 5 (extremely involved), how involved their mothers and fathers had been during the participant’s childhood and adolescence.

Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Finley and Schwartz (2004) extracted three fathering subscales from the 20 involvement domains: instrumental (discipline, being protective, career development, providing income, ethical/moral development, school/homework, developing independence, and developing responsibility), expressive (caregiving, companionship, leisure/fun/play, sharing activities/interests, emotional development, social development, spiritual development, and physical development), and mentoring/advising (mentoring/teaching, advising, developing competence, and intellectual development). In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .79 to .91, with a mean of .86.

Troubled Ruminations about Parents. To assess troubled ruminations about mother and father, we used two four-item Troubled Ruminations about Parents Scales (Schwartz et al., in press-a). These scales consist of three items adapted from the Painful Feelings about Divorce measure (Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000). We selected items that (a) were applicable to participants from both intact and divorced families and (b) reflected an angry, ruminative, painful, or regretful tone regarding past relationships with parents. These items were “My father/mother caused most of the pain in my family,” “I wish my father/mother had spent more time with me when I was younger,” and “There have been times when I wondered if my father/mother even loved me.” We also added two items assessing overall satisfaction with one’s mother and with one’s father. In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha estimates for troubled ruminations about mother and about father were .78 and .81, respectively.

Psychosocial Functioning. We assessed eight indices of psychosocial functioning using commonly used measures of each construct. From each measure, we selected a subset of items (generally between two and five). We did this as a way of assessing an extensive range of psychosocial outcomes without the instrumentation becoming too long. Our primary motivation for using shortened scales was a concern regarding the amount of time during which students were likely to maintain concentration and to provide accurate responses.

For each scale, the authors and a panel of undergraduate and graduate students selected those items that appeared to most directly reflect the construct of interest and that were most appropriate for emerging adults. Each student then administered the selected items to 5-10 pilot participants and asked them to identify the clearest and most face-valid items for each construct.

The authors and students then met again and selected the items that they and the pilot participants believed best represented the dimensions of psychosocial functioning that we intended to measure. Data from these pilot participants were not included in the present analyses.

Self-esteem was measured using two items from the Coopersmith (1981) Self-Esteem Scale, along with items assessing overall self-esteem and overall satisfaction with one’s physical appearance (cf. Harter, 1999). The response scale ranged from 1 (Completely False) to 4 (Completely True). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .78.

Purpose in life was measured using two items (“In life, I have very clear goals and aims for myself” and “I have discovered clear-cut goals and a satisfying life purpose”) taken from the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1969). The response scale ranged from 1 (Completely False) to 4 (Completely True). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .82.

Life satisfaction was measured using a single item that asked participants to indicate their overall satisfaction with life, on a scale of 1 (Very Low) to 5 (Very High). Single-item measures of life satisfaction have been commonly used and appear to possess adequate construct validity (e.g., Antonucci, Lansford, & Akiyama, 2001; Makinen & Pychyl, 2001).

Psychological distress was measured using four items from the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Beck, Epstein, Brown, & Steer, 1988), four items from the Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977), and three reverse-coded items from the Ego Strength Scale (Epstein, 1983). All of these items were responded to using a scale ranging from 1 (Completely False) to 4 (Completely True). The Cronbach’s alpha estimate was .87.

Friendship quality was measured using three items from the Friendship Quality Scale (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994). Although this measure was designed for use with adolescents, we selected those items that would also apply to emerging adults. These items were “If my closest friend and I have a fight or argument, we can apologize and everything will be OK,” “I can be completely open with my closest friend,” and “I can always count on my closest friend.” These items were responded to using a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .71.

Satisfaction with friendships was measured using a single item assessing overall satisfaction with friendships, on a scale of 1 (Very Low) to 5 (Very High). This item was left separate from friendship quality because it did not correlate with the friendship quality items.

Romantic relationship problems were measured using three items from the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), assessing the extent to which (a) romantic partners meet the person’s needs, (b) the person has problems in her/his relationships, and (c) s/he regrets having gotten into most of these relationships. We added two additional items referring to being taken advantage of in relationships and to one’s relationships not lasting very long. We adapted these items to refer to romantic relationships in general, because some participants may not have been in a committed relationship at the time of data collection. The response scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree). The Cronbach’s alpha estimate was .72.

Academic performance was assessed using items measuring (a) overall satisfaction with one’s academic work, (b) one’s characterization of oneself in high school and in college (e.g., A student, B student), and (c) self-reported high school grade point average. Satisfaction with academic work was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (Very Low) to 5 (Very High). The Cronbach’s alpha estimate was .69.

Procedure

In Miami, participants came to a laboratory and completed the assessment in groups of 8-10.

In Northern Florida, participants completed the assessment in class. Average completion time ranged from 20-30 minutes. Data were collected between September 2004 and January 2006.

Results

Membership in the intact versus divorced family forms did not differ significantly by emerging-adult gender, χ 2 (2, N = 1443) = 3.10, p = .21, φ = .05. However, there were significant ethnic differences by family form, χ 2 (6, N = 1424) = 39.71, p < .001, φ = .17. Ninety-six percent of Asian participants, compared to 71% of non-Hispanic Whites, 59% of non-Hispanic Blacks, and 73% of Hispanics, were from intact families.

Hypothesis 1: Relationships between Perceived Maternal and Paternal Nurturance and Involvement by Family Form

We tested Hypothesis 1 by correlating reports of nurturance, expressive involvement, instrumental involvement, and mentoring/advising across parents. We also evaluated the extent to which, within each family form, each correlation was consistent across gender and across ethnicity.

We tested for correlation differences using a procedure outlined by Cheung and Chan (2004). All of the correlations to be compared are estimated within a single model, to avoid problems associated with testing the same hypothesis multiple times. The correlation differences were tested in two steps. First, we tested for differences in correlations between family forms. A model with these correlations free to vary across family form was compared to a model with these correlations held equal across family form. The difference in correlations across family form can be indexed as the difference in model fit between the constrained and unconstrained models – where model fit is indexed according to how well each of the models matches the data. A significant difference in model fit is represented by at least two of the following three criteria: a significant chi-square difference (Byrne, 2001), a difference in comparative fit indices (CFI) of .01 or greater (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), and a difference in non-normed fit indices (NNFI) of .02 or greater (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). If these fit indices change appreciably when the correlations are held equal across family forms, then we can assume that the correlations are significantly unequal across family forms. This approach is more statistically powerful than the traditional (r-to-z) method of comparing correlation coefficients – which is known to be rather weak (Cheung & Chan, 2004).

Analyses indicated significant correlation differences across family forms, Δχ 2 (10) = 50.75, p < .001; ΔCFI = .003; ΔNNFI = .052. The correlations between corresponding maternal and paternal variables were strong and significant in intact families and close to zero in nonresident-father divorced families (see Table 1).

Second, we sought to examine whether these correlation differences may have been due to emerging-adult gender or ethnicity. Within each family form, we tested for correlation differences across gender and across ethnicity using the same procedure used to test for differences across family form. Correlations were consistent across gender within both family forms: intact families, Δχ 2 (5) = 5.43, p = .37; ΔCFI < .001; ΔNNFI = .001; and divorced families, Δχ 2 (5) = 5.55, p = .35; ΔCFI < .001; ΔNNFI = .004. Correlations were also consistent across ethnicity within intact families, Δχ 2 (10) = 15.98, p = .10; ΔCFI = .001; ΔNNFI = .002, and within divorced families, Δχ 2 (10) = 11.76, p = .30; ΔCFI = .001; ΔNNFI = .009. These findings therefore suggest that the correlation differences across family form were not due to gender or to ethnicity – and that these differences were likely due to family form itself.

Hypothesis 2: Consequences of the Divided World for Psychosocial Functioning

In the final set of analyses, we operationalized the “divided world” effect as a continuum and examined its relationship to emerging adult psychosocial functioning. Following Beyers and Goossens (2008), we computed latent “total” and “difference” scores between reports of corresponding maternal and paternal processes. This allows both the “total” amount of nurturance and involvement received from parents, as well as the difference in perceived mothering versus fathering, to predict each psychosocial outcome. The “total” latent variable was created by fixing the path coefficient to each parenting variable to 1, and the path from the “difference” latent variable to the father variable was fixed to -1. These constraints specify that both parents’ nurturance or involvement scores are added together to derive the “total” score, and that the father’s amount of nurturance or involvement score is subtracted from the mother’s score to derive the “difference” score.

A separate model was estimated for each parenting variable (nurturance, expressive involvement, instrumental involvement, and mentoring/advising). We also modeled family form as a predictor of the “total” and “difference” scores for each parenting variable, to ascertain the extent to which the “divided world” effect might differ by family. The unstandardized regression coefficients for these paths represent the magnitude of the difference, in standard deviations, between intact and divorced families.

We evaluated the fit of each model using the CFI, which compares the fit of the model being evaluated to that of a null model with no relationships between variables; as well as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which reflects the extent to which the correlations implied by the model deviate from those observed in the data. The chi-square index (χ 2 ) tests the null hypothesis of perfect fit to the data – which is often impossible to achieve – and as a result, the χ 2 is reported but is not used to evaluate model fit. As specified by Keith (2006) and Kline (2006), good model fit is represented by a CFI of .95 or higher and a RMSEA of .05 or below, with .90 and .08 representing the lower and upper bounds for acceptable CFI and RMSEA values, respectively.

These path models fit the data well, χ 2 (10 df each) ranged from 62.83 to 102.57, all ps < .001, CFI ranged from .98 to .99, RMSEA ranged from .062 to .082. Divorced families were rated lower than intact families on total scores for three of the four parenting variables: nurturance, B = -.11, p < .02; expressive involvement, B = -.13, p < .001; and total mentoring/advising involvement, B = -.14, p < .001. In terms of the mother-father difference scores, divorced families scored significantly higher than intact families on all four parenting variables: nurturance, B = .67, p < .001; expressive involvement, B = .65, p < .001; instrumental involvement, B = .94, p < .001; and mentoring/advising involvement, B = .46, p < .001.

For nurturance and all three dimensions of involvement, the total score was significantly related to all of the psychosocial functioning indices and to troubled ruminations about parents.

The difference score was significantly related (in the opposite direction) to all of these indices except for purpose in life and academics (see Table 2).

Discussion

The present study yields two important insights into the “divided world of the child.” First, and consistent with prior work (Marsiglio et al., 2000; White, 1999), in intact families, reports of nurturance and involvement from mothers and from fathers were closely related. However, this was not the case in divorced families. Second, when the “divided world” was operationalized as a continuum, the total amount of nurturance and involvement across parents was positively linked with indices of well-being, and negatively linked with indices of distress, romantic relationship problems, and troubled ruminations about parents. Between-parent differences in nurturance and involvement were negatively related to self-esteem, life satisfaction, and friendship quality and satisfaction; and positively related to distress, romantic relationship problems, and troubled ruminations about parents. Further, divorced families were associated with a greater “divided world” effect than intact families, suggesting that divorce is associated with compromised quality of life in emerging adulthood, as well as with troubled ruminations about one’s father. All of these findings were consistent across gender and ethnicity – suggesting that custody and access decisions need to be responsive to the feelings and outcomes of children of divorce, regardless of their gender or ethnic background.

Effects of Divorce on the “Divided World” Effect

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, in divorced families, there was virtually no relationship between reports of corresponding maternal and paternal processes – suggesting that the adult child’s world had been sharply divided. Divorce therefore appears to be associated with a perception that one’s parents are sharply different in their levels of nurturance and involvement – which can be troubling for the child, as noted below. This pattern represents the essence of the divided world of the child, as originally conceptualized by Marquardt (2005). “Dad’s World” becomes separated from the child’s primary family system. It must be noted, however, that the degree to which this occurs likely varies from one divorced family to another (Harvey & Fine, 2004). The extent of the “divided world” may depend on the extent of cordiality between the parents, the child’s custody arrangement (Maccoby, Buchanan, Mnookin, & Dornbusch, 1993), and whether one parent has relocated away from the other (Braver, Ellman, & Fabricius, 2003).

Moreover, the “divided world” effect is associated not only with more traditional measures of well-being, distress, and relational functioning, but also with troubled ruminations about the father. Troubled ruminations include dissatisfaction with the father-child relationship, feeling unloved by the father, feeling that he caused most of the pain in the family, and doubting whether he wanted to spend time with the person. At least some of this is likely a result of structural factors resulting from custody and access decisions.

Effects of Differential Parental Involvement and Nurturance on Emerging Adult Children’s

Psychosocial Functioning

The results for Hypothesis 2 were also supportive of the “divided world of the child” thesis – and suggest that the “divided world” effect is more pronounced in divorced families than in intact families. As anticipated, the total amount of involvement received from both parents was predictive of all of the psychosocial functioning indices across family forms, and the difference between maternal and paternal nurturance and involvement was a significant predictor in the vast majority (85%) of cases. What this suggests is that both perceiving both parents as non-nurturant and uninvolved and/or perceiving a sharp difference between maternal and paternal nurturance or involvement – both of which may be linked to divorce – may be associated with compromised psychosocial functioning and troubled ruminations in emerging adults.

Critically, although it is possible for a “divided world” to emerge in intact families, there are structural effects of divorce, and of custody and access decisions, that may make the divided world effect more likely to appear in divorced families. In intact families, the divided world effect is most likely to emerge when parents are differentially involved. One common example would be when one parent is largely non-nurturant and non-involved while the other is highly nurturant and highly involved. However, in divorced families where the father generally is cast into a nonresident role, divorce itself may structurally create the divided world effect. It is therefore essential for family courts to create post-divorce custody arrangements that maximize nurturance and involvement from both parents in order to reduce the “divided world” effect.

Among the psychosocial functioning indices, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and psychological distress appear to be among those most affected both by “total” parenting and by mother-father differences in parenting. These three psychosocial functioning indices, taken together, have been labeled as “subjective well-being” (Sheldon et al., 2004) and are often used to index quality of life in young people. Post-divorce arrangements that marginalize the father from the child’s life and decrease that parent’s nurturance and involvement (cf. Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Finley & Schwartz, 2006; 2007) thus appear to have far-reaching impacts on young people’s quality of life. In turn, these effects may be associated with subsequent difficulties in career and in relationships (Côté, 2002). Troubled ruminations about the father, which also appear to result from lowered parental nurturance and involvement and from the “divided world” effect, have also been found to reduce well-being and to increase distress in emerging adults (Schwartz et al., in press-a).

Limitations

The present results should be interpreted in light of several important limitations. First, all variables were measured concurrently. As a result, although parental involvement and nurturance were assessed retrospectively, and although psychosocial functioning was assessed in present tense, we cannot rule out the possibility that current dimensions of functioning may have influenced participants’ reports about their parents’ past behavior.

Second, all of the parenting dimensions were assessed globally, referring to the entirety of the participant’s childhood and adolescence. This was intentional in light of the framing of emerging adulthood as a time of reflecting back on one’s childhood and adolescence in totality (cf. Arnett, 2000). However, we do not know whether participants from divorced families completed the parenting measures thinking of conditions occurring before, during, or after divorce. Third, the use of a university student sample may introduce biases by underrepresenting individuals with financial, emotional, intellectual, or social difficulties. Further research with community samples is needed.

Finally, the ethnic breakdown of the sample is both a limitation and an advantage. As a limitation, the overrepresentation of ethnic minorities and of individuals from immigrant families is not consistent with the U.S. population at present. Moreover, the ethnic diversity of the sample is specific to the Miami area, given that Cuban Americans comprised more than half of Hispanic participants and that most of the Blacks were of Caribbean descent (cf. Stepick & Stepick, 2002).

Replication with larger proportions of native-born Whites, African Americans, and groups that comprise the majority of the U.S. Hispanic population (Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans; Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2003) is needed.

As an advantage, the ethnic diversity of the sample may reflect the changing demographics of the U.S. population. Hispanics are overrepresented among the foreign-born population (Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2003), and immigrants are comprising an increasing share of the Black population in the United States. Since 2000, one of every two people added to the U.S. population has been Hispanic (Bernstein, 2007), and by 2050, one-quarter of Americans will likely be of Hispanic descent (Huntington, 2004). As a result, gathering data on ethnically diverse samples is an important direction in family research (e.g., King, Harris, & Heard, 2004; Toth & Xu, 1999). The diversity of the sample also allowed us to evaluate the consistency of our findings across gender and ethnicity.

Conclusions and Implications for Family Court Practice and Policy

The present results have provided substantial support for the “divided world” thesis (Finley, 2006; Marquardt, 2005). The strongest support for this thesis comes not only from indices of perceived parenting, but also from indices of emerging-adult psychosocial functioning and of troubled ruminations – long-term feelings of anger, pain, regret, and hurt. Clearly, a postdivorce arrangement where one parent resides within the child’s primary family system — while the other is marginalized or severed from that family system — does not fulfill the best interests of the child (cf. Finley, 2002). The present findings thus suggest that divorce decrees that include joint physical custody may represent one way to reduce the distress associated with the “divided world” and to enhance quality of life for children of divorce (cf. Warshak, 2007). The present results also suggest that, the more the child’s post-divorce life resembles that of an intact family, the better adjusted children of divorce are likely to be as they enter adulthood.

References

• Amato, P. R. (1998). More than money? Men’s contributions to their children’s lives. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? (pp. 241-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557-573.
• Antonucci, T. C., Lansford, J., & Akiyama, H. (2001). Impact of positive and negative aspects of marital relationships on well-being in older adults. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 68-75.
• Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America (pp. 193-218). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Arditti, J. A., & Madden-Derdich, D. (1997). Joint and sole custody mothers: Implications for research and practice. Families in Society, 78, 36-45.
• Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
• Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893-897.
• Bernstein, R. (2007). Minority population tops 100 million. Retrieved May 17, 2007 at http://www.census.gov/dcmd/www/embargo/popest/national/pio-nat_stat.html.
• Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2008). Dynamics of perceived parenting and identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 165-184.
• Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. M., & Fabricus, W. V. (2003). Relocation of children after divorce and children’s best interests: New evidence and legal considerations. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 206-219.
• Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 471-484.
• Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Carlson, M. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137-154.
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
• Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2004). Testing dependent correlation coefficients via structural equation modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 206-223.
• Coopersmith, S. (1981). The Self-Esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Côté, J. E. (2002). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The individualization thesis examined. Journal of Youth Studies, 5(2), 117-134.
• Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instructions for the Purpose in Life Test. Munster, IN: Psychometric Affiliates.
• Dienhart, A. (2002). Make room for Daddy: The pragmatic potentials of a tag-team structure for sharing parenting. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 973-999.
• Emery, R., & Dillon, P. (1994). Conceptualizing the divorce process: Renegotiating boundaries of intimacy and power in the divorced family system. Family Relations, 43, 374-379.
• Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings on living arrangements, college support, and relocation that diverge from Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee. Family Relations, 52, 385-396.
• Fabricius, W. V., & Hall, J. (2000). Young adults’ perspectives on divorce: Living arrangements. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 446-461.
• Finley, G. E. (2002). The best interest of the child and the eye of the beholder. [Review of C. Panter-Brick and M. T. Smith (Eds.), Abandoned Children]. Contemporary Psychology, 47, 629-631.
• Finley, G. E. (2006). The myth of the good divorce (Review of Between two worlds: The inner lives of the children of divorce). PsycCRITIQUES, 51(35), Article 17.
• Finley, G. E., Mira, S. D., & Schwartz, S. J. (2008). Perceived paternal and maternal involvement: Factor structures, mean differences, and parental roles. Fathering, 6, 62-82.
• Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2004). The father involvement and nurturant fathering scales: Retrospective measures for adolescent and adult children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 143-164.
• Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2006). Parsons and Bales revisited: Young adult children’s characterization of the fathering role. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 42-55.
• Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2007). Father involvement and long-term young adult outcomes: The roles of divorce and gender. Family Court Review, 45, 571-587.
• Greif, G. L. (1995). Single fathers with custody following separation and divorce. Marriage and Family Review, 20(1/2), 213-231.
• Harvey, J. H., & Fine, M. A. (2004). Children of divorce: Stories of loss and growth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hawkins, A. J., & Palkovitz, R. (1999). Beyond ticks and clicks: The need for more diverse and broader conceptualizations and measures of father involvement. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, 11-32.
• Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
• Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (1999). The adjustment of children with divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 129-140.
• Huntington, S. P. (2004). The Hispanic challenge. Foreign Policy, 141, 30-45.
• Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: Insights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process, 46, 35-52.
• Khaleque, A., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and psychological adjustment: A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 54-64.
• King, V., Harris, K. M., & Heard, H. E. (2004). Racial and ethnic diversity in nonresident father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1-21.
• King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contribution to adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537-557.
• Kline, R. B. (2006). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2 nd ed). New York: Guilford.
• Laumann-Billings, L., & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 671-687.
• Maccoby, E., Buchanan. C. M., Mnookin, R. H., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Postdivorce roles of mothers and fathers in the lives of their children. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 24-38.
• Makinen, J. A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2001). The differential effects of project stress on life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 53, 1-16.
• Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce. New York: Crown.
• Marsiglio, W., Amato, P. R., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173-1191.
• Ng, K.-M., & Smith, S. D. (2006). The relationships between attachment theory and intergenerational systems theory. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14, 430-440.
• Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
• Ramirez, R. R., & de la Cruz, G. P. (2003). The Hispanic population in the United States, March 2002 (Current Population Report P20-545). Washington, DC: U. S. Census Bureau.
• Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Rohner, R. P., & Britner, P. A. (2002). Worldwide mental health correlates of parental acceptance-rejection: Review of cross-cultural and intracultural evidence. Cross-Cultural Research, 36, 16-47.
• Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2005). Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross-cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos, 33, 299-334.
• Schwartz, S. J., Finley, G. E., & Mira, S. D. (in press-a). Troubled ruminations about parents: Conceptualization and validation with emerging adults. Journal of Counseling and Development.
• Schwartz, S. J., Finley, G. E., & Mira, S. D. (in press-b). The influence of divorce on reports of and desires for maternal and paternal involvement. Family Court Review.
• Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., Demir, M., & Sun, Z. (2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 209-223.
• Stepick, A., & Stepick, C. D. (2002). Power and identity: Miami Cubans. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco and M. Paez (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 75-92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Toth, J. F., Jr., & Xu, X. (1999). Ethnic and cultural diversity in fathers’ involvement: A racial/ethnic comparison of African American, Hispanic, and White fathers. Youth and Society, 31, 76-99.
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
• Warshak, R. A. (2003). Payoffs and pitfalls of listening to children. Family Relations, 52, 373-384.
• Warshak, R. A. (2007). Punching the parenting time clock: The approximation rule, social science, and the baseball bat kids. Family Court Review, 45, 600-619.
• White, L. (1999). Contagion in family affection: Mothers, fathers, and young adult children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 284-294.

Table 1 – Mother-Father Correlations by Family Form
Variable	Intact	Divorced
Nurturance	.37 ***	.06
Expressive Involvement	.50 ***	.04
Instrumental Involvement	.45 ***	.03
Mentoring/Advising	.38 ***	-.01
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

___________________________

Table 2 – Standard Regression Coefficients for Psychosocial Indices on Parenting Variables
Variable	Nurturance		Expressive Involvement		Instrumental Involvement		Mentoring/Advising
	Total	Difference	Total	Difference	Total	Difference	Total	Difference
Self-Esteem	.33 ***	-.16 ***	.31 ***	-.14 ***	.23 ***	-.12 ***	.29 ***	-.16 ***
Purpose in Life	.22 ***	-.01	.23 ***	-.02	.25 ***	.01	.25 ***	-.01
Life Satisfaction	.45 ***	-.22 ***	.42 ***	-.19 ***	.34 ***	-.15 ***	.40 ***	-.17 ***
Friendship Quality	.16 ***	-.10 **	.16 ***	-.09 **	.16 ***	-.07 *	.18 ***	-.09 **
Friendship Satisfaction	.23 ***	-.17 ***	.21 ***	-.18 ***	.19 ***	-.13 ***	.21 ***	-.12 ***
Romantic Problems	-.24 ***	.14 ***	-.23 ***	.13 ***	-.19 ***	.09 **	-.20 ***	.09 **
Psychological Distress	-.31 ***	.17 ***	-.27 ***	.15 ***	-.23 ***	.13 ***	-.27 ***	.14 ***
Academics	.17 ***	-.06 *	.19 ***	-.07 *	.18 ***	-.07 *	.20 ***	-.06 *
Troubled Ruminations Mother	-.74 ***	-.04	-.60 ***	-.04	-.48 ***	.08 **	-.55 ***	.06 *
Troubled Ruminations Father	-.70 ***	.70 ***	-.59 ***	.62 ***	-.50 ***	.56 ***	-.58 ***	.59 ***
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001