Post-Separation Patterns of Parenting in Australia

268 Pages·2006·2.61 MB·English

by  Bruce Smyth

POST-SEPARATION PATTERNS OF PARENTING IN AUSTRALIA

WHO OPTS FOR WHICH PATTERNS AND WHY?

BRUCE SMYTH B.A.

A report of research submitted as full requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Sociology
Faculty of Life and Social Sciences
Swinburne University of Technology

December 2005
ABSTRACT

Despite widespread interest in patterns of parenting after separation in Australia, the
gaps in our knowledge remain large and fundamental. Most studies, including those
overseas, have taken a quantitative tack, measuring the frequency and overall amount of
face-to-face contact between children and non-resident parents (mostly fathers). But
obviously there is more to parent–child contact than just time. The nature and quality of
the interaction are also important – perhaps even more so.

Recently there has been a push towards recognising and describing both qualitative
and quantitative differences in the many ways that parental sharing of time with
children can occur after divorce. This thesis attempts to identify and explore some of
these differences by comparing five different patterns of care: (i) 50/50 shared care,
(ii) little or no contact, (iii) holiday-only contact, (iv) daytime-only contact, and (v)
“standard” contact (thought to occur every-other-weekend and half of each school
holidays). A representative snapshot of parent–child contact schedules after separation
is presented to provide some of the detail of arrangements within this typology.

Two (complementary) types of data are used: qualitative data from a series of focus
groups with separated parents, and quantitative data from three large representative
samples of separated/divorced parents in Australia. Joining the dots between the
various pieces of data, there is much to suggest that family dynamics in tandem with
demographic factors temper the form that parent–child contact takes, with different
combinations of factors clearly linked to qualitatively different patterns of post-
separation parenting.

While separating parents need to be encouraged to think more laterally about what
arrangements might work best for their children and themselves, the data presented
suggest that some parents in Australia are already being very creative and there is
much diversity of arrangements. The central argument running through this
ii
dissertation is that arrangements that allow children to experience fluid, meaningful
time with each parent are critical for children’s and parents’ wellbeing.

The ideas and data presented here – especially some of the more creative timesharing
schedules developed by parents – are likely to be a useful resource for separated
parents, and the family law professionals they approach for assistance, to reflect on
when developing or refining parenting arrangements after divorce.

iii
DEDICATION

In loving memory of my grandparents, Gertrude and Reuben Cohen, and my friend
Paddy.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I am indebted to the many respondents who participated in this
research. This work would not have been possible without their help.

I am especially grateful to Michael Gilding and Kathy Betts of Swinburne University
of Technology for their encouragement, support, expert supervision, and helpful
comments along the way; my friend and colleague, Ruth Weston, who has also been a
bedrock of support and encouragement; and my other friends and colleagues at the
Australian Institute of Family Studies, particularly Anna Ferro, Catherine Caruana,
Lixia Qu, and Ilene Wolcott, for their help with the Caring for Children after
Parental Separation Project. More specifically, Anna Ferro, Catherine Caruana and
Carol Whitfield helped transcribe and analyse some of the focus group data. Under
supervision, Anna conducted the initial analysis of the focus group data for “standard”
contact, while Catherine and Carol did the same for the “daytime-only” contact and
holiday-only contact focus groups respectively. Anna also helped to sort and
transpose the contact schedule data, computed some of the descriptive statistics used
in Chapter 10, and profiled the focus groups participants whose comments were
quoted (see Appendix 2). Lixia Qu provided statistical expertise in transposing the
Family Characteristics Survey data, and in calculating the design effect for the
HILDA data reported in Chapter 9. I have re-worked the focus group material in
Chapters 6–8 so that what remains is my original thought and words.

Other colleagues at the Institute also deserve special thanks: Carolyn Shaw, Claire
Walker, and the late Christine McCarthy, for their meticulous transcriptions of some
of the focus group interviews; Carole Jean, Anita Emmanoulidis, Judy Adams and
other members of the Family Information Centre for their help obtaining much of the
material cited in this work; Ross Millward and Melissa Veit for their unwavering
expert I.T. support; and the Institute’s editor, Meredith Michie, for minor editorial
suggestions along the way as part of the publication process.

v
I am especially grateful to the Australian Institute of Family Studies for supporting
my studies (particularly David de Vaus and David Stanton), and allowing me access
to data from the Caring for Children after Parental Separation Project. Much of this
dissertation has already been published in different forms in Australia and elsewhere.
My hope is that the Institute benefits from these publications, and treats them as a
small gesture of my gratitude for its generous support.

Some thanks are beyond words, and this is the case for my long-standing friends, the
Bishop family – especially Phil, the Moloney family – particularly Lawrie, the
Meagher family – especially Marcia and Jem, Christine Kilmartin, Christine
Millward, and Colin Riess. Thank you for being there in so many ways – sometimes
small but mostly big. To my children, Ellie and Jordan; my parents, Judy and David;
my brothers, Ricky, Darren, and Mark; my uncle and aunt, John and Sandra; my
cousins, Rhonda and Gary – I love each of you more than you will ever know.

One special friend, Sophie Holloway, deserves to be singled out. Sophie read every
word of this thesis on several occasions, and constantly chanted “You can do it! Keep
going!” in the background. May each word come back as a blessing.

This dissertation draws on confidentialised unit record file from the Household,
Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. The HILDA Project was
initiated and is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community
Services (FaCS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and
Social Research (MIAESR). The findings and views reported in this thesis, however,
are those of the author and should not be attributed to either FaCS or the MIAESR.

Any shortcomings or errors in this work are mine alone.

vi
DECLARATION

No part of this work has been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or
tertiary institution.

To the best of the best of my knowledge, any theories or research that are not my own
have been acknowledged in the text.

While parts of this thesis draw on joint published or unpublished work, the work
presented here is based on my intellectual contribution, and was written and
conceptualised by me.

Bruce Smyth
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II
DEDICATION IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
DECLARATION VII
LIST OF TABLES XIII
LIST OF FIGURES XIV
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Some commonly held “truths” 3
Patterns of parent–child contact in Australia 4
Structure of the thesis 8
Language 8
A typology for categorising contact 9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11
Studies of parent–child contact: What do we know? 13
Australia 13
New Zealand 20
United Kingdom 23
United States of America 26
Canada 31
Summary 32
Parent–child contact and children’s wellbeing 33
Summary 35
The need for a more comprehensive approach 36
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN 38
Qualitative data 38
Dataset 1: Focus groups 38
viii
Quantitative data 44
Dataset 2: HILDA 44
Dataset 3: Caring for Children after Parental Separation 48
Dataset 4: Family Characteristics Survey 50
Summary 50
CHAPTER 4: FIFTY-FIFTY CARE 52
50/50 shared care 52
The focus groups 55
Vignettes 56
Sally and Rod 56
Kathy 57
Key themes 60
Parental motives 60
Work and money 62
The parent–child relationship 64
Paternal competence 65
Logistical challenges 66
Putting kids first 67
Summary 68
CHAPTER 5: LITTLE OR NO CONTACT 70
Fatherless-ness: Society’s most pressing social problem? 70
Research into paternal disengagement 71
The focus groups 75
Vignettes 75
Ross 76
Audrey 77
Key themes 77
Fathers’ perceptions of being "cut out" 81
From Dr Heckle(d) to Mr Hide? The psychology of disengagement 83
“The system” 84
The “shallowness” of sporadic contact 85
Other forms of contact 87
Caught in the middle: Children’s adjustment 88
ix
Summary 90
CHAPTER 6: HOLIDAY-ONLY CONTACT 93
The focus groups 96
Vignettes 97
Jackie 97
Gerard 98
Mark 99
Key themes 99
Juggling work, family and holidays 100
Predictability, then quantity, then quality? 101
Other forms of communication 103
Obstruction and disempowerment 105
Physical and emotional space 107
“It gets easier as they get older” 109
Summary 110
CHAPTER 7: DAYTIME-ONLY CONTACT 112
When the difference is night and day 112
Who don’t some children stay overnight? 115
The focus groups 117
Vignettes 118
John 118
Penny 119
Key themes 120
Parental conflict 121
“Hanging out” with Dad 124
Impact on the parent–child relationship 126
“His interest just wasn’t there anymore” 129
Triggers and the status quo 130
Children’s safety and paternal competence 132
New partners and second families 133
Structure or process? 134
Summary 134
x