Fabricius 1

PARENTING TIME, PARENT CONFLICT, PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS,AND CHILDREN’S PHYSICAL HEALTH

William V. Fabricius
Priscila Diaz
Sanford L. Braver
Arizona State University

Final draft 2/9/2011
Please do not quote until copyedited version

To appear in
Kuehnle, K. & Drozd, L. (Eds.) Parenting Plan Evaluations:Applied Research for the Family Court. Oxford University Press.

Based on William V. Fabricius
Opening Plenary: “30 Years of Research on Child Custody and Policy Implications”
Presented at the Arizona Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference
Sedona, AZ February 6, 2010

Fabricius 2

PARENTING TIME, PARENT CONFLICT, PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS, AND
CHILDREN’S PHYSICAL HEALTHINTRODUCTION
Questions the chapter will address. Two questions often confront family law courts andpolicy makers: “Is the quantity or the quality of parenting time more important for children’s
outcomes?” and “Should parenting time be limited in high-conflict families?” Most discussions
in the research literature give the following answers: The quality of parenting time is more
important for children’s well-being than the quantity of parenting time, and when there isfrequent and severe parent conflict parenting time should be limited because it can seriously
harm children. We argue in the present chapter that these long-standing conclusions should be
re-examined in the light of new evidence. We present new data on the correlation between
quantity of parenting time and quality of parent-child relationships in families with and without
severe parent conflict, and we discuss new findings in the health literature on family
relationships and children’s long-term, stress-related physical health. We conclude that these
new findings indicate that the lingering situation of minimal parenting time with fathers for great
numbers of children is a serious public health issue.
Our model of how parenting time and parent conflict affect children’s health. Figure 1
shows our conceptual model, or hypotheses, of how the effects of parenting time ultimately playout to influence children’s health outcomes. We test this type of model in our ongoing research(e.g., Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; Fabricius, Braver, Diaz & Velez, 2010) and we use it here toorganize the various sections of this chapter. The model indicates that parenting time should

Fabricius 3

impact one class of parent behaviors, namely father-child interaction. Interaction is spendingtime doing things together. By “impact” we mean that for each father, given his own personaltendency to interact with his child, more parenting time will allow more interaction and lessparenting time will allow less. When we indicate impact by an arrow it usually means both that
more of the thing on the left end of the arrow causes more of the thing on the right end, and thatless of the thing on the left causes less of the thing on the right.
Parenting time should not normally impact father responsiveness, which is the reliabilityof the father’s tendency to respond when the child expresses wants or needs. It reflects not how
frequently the child asks, but how reliably the father responds. Responsiveness can occur with orwithout face-to-face interaction, and can be manifested in deeds or words. Examples include
conversations, either in person or on the phone in which the father really listens to the child,buying or making things that the child wants, helping with homework when the child asks, etc.
The model indicates that both father–child interaction and father responsivenessindependently impact the child’s felt emotional security in the father-child relationship. Parent
conflict as well impacts the emotional security of the father-child relationship (in this case, moreparent conflict causes less emotional security, and less parent conflict causes more emotional
security). For simplicity, we have not included the analogous factors for mothers in Figure 1, but
suffice to say that mother-child interactions, mother responsiveness, and parent conflict impact
the mother-child relationship, and both the mother-child and the father-child relationships impact
the child’s health outcomes. We will say more about how parenting time differentially impacts
the mother-child and the father-child relationships later.
IS THE QUANTITY OR THE QUALITY OF PARENTING TIME MORE IMPORTANT FOR
CHILDREN’S OUTCOMES?

Fabricius 4

Old and new measures of parenting time. An influential review of the research on fatherchild contact after divorce published just over 10 years ago (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999) led to theconsensus that quality was more important than quantity. Specifically, Amato and Gilbreth foundthat frequency of contact was less important for children’s outcomes than two other dimensionsof the father–child relationship; i.e., father-child emotional closeness, and father authoritative
parenting. The authors coded the following specific behaviors in the studies they reviewed asindicators of authoritative parenting: engaging in projects together, listening to the child’s
problems, monitoring and helping with school work, giving advice, explaining rules, and using
non-coercive discipline. Amato and Gilbreth’s finding continues to influence many researchers
to be skeptical that increasing quantity of parenting time with nonresident fathers benefits
children (e.g., Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2007; Stewart, 2003). However, we explain in the restof this section why courts and policy makers should be cautious about drawing implications
about effects of quantity of parenting time from studies that instead measured frequency ofcontact, and we point to studies with better measures of quantity of parenting time.
Amato and Gilbreth (1999) noted that most of the studies prior to 1999 measured
frequency of contact and only some measured duration or regularity of visits. When respondents
are asked how frequently father–child contact has occurred, they are given a limited number ofcategories to choose from, such as “once a year,” “one to three times a month,” “once a week,”
etc. Frequency poorly represents amount of parenting time. For example, two divorced families
that have the same parenting time schedule of every other weekend at the father’s home could
choose different categories. One family could count it as 2 visits per month, in which case theywould report it as “one to three times a month.” The other family could count it as 4 days permonth, in which case they would report “once a week.” Even if both families reported it as “one

Fabricius 5

to three times a month,” it might be a 2-day weekend visit for one family and a 3-day weekend
visit for the other. Argys et al. (2007) recently compared several large surveys, four of whichmeasured frequency, and concluded that, “What is most striking about the reports of father–childcontact … and perhaps most alarming to researchers, is the magnitude of the differences in thereported prevalence of father–child contact across the different surveys” (p. 383). This inherent
unreliability makes it difficult to find consistent relations between frequency measures and childoutcomes. Many of the pre-1999 studies, and many studies today, are based on several national
surveys 1 that measured frequency; other national and state surveys 2 as well as individual
researchers (e.g., Coley & Medeiros, 2007; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000) continue to use
measures of frequency.
Despite all the research on divorce since the 1980’s, there is no standard measure ofamount of parenting time. Argys, et al. (2007) noted that in the surveys they examined,“variation in the phrasing of the questions [about father-child contact] is significant” (p. 382).
The Argys, et al. review will hopefully initiate the dialogue necessary for the field to arrive at
valid, reliable measures of amount of parenting time, because courts and policy makers are in
great need of that information. Some progress is being made. Smyth (2004) describes thetelephone survey designed by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. 3 Smyth and colleagues
used these questions to sort each family into discrete groups to reveal the variety of parenting
plans in use. These questions could also be used to calculate the amount of parenting time. One
shortcoming of these questions, however, is that they do not apply to parents who do not have aset parenting plan, or to those who live far apart and have yearly plans. A second shortcoming isthat they only capture the parenting plan that is in place at the time the questions are asked. If theFabricius 6plan changes later, as a result of relocation for example, then the data for that family may not
represent the parenting plan the child experienced for most of his or her life.
A different approach was taken by Fabricius and Luecken (2007), who asked young
adults four retrospective questions about the typical number of days and nights they spent with
their fathers during the school year and vacations. 4 The amount of parenting time can becalculated from these questions, and this is the approach we use below in our new data. An
advantage of this retrospective approach is that respondents can focus on the time period after
the divorce that was most typical or representative.
Having valid measures of parenting time is one prerequisite for addressing the issue ofthe relative importance of quantity versus quality of parenting time, but so is having valid
measures of the quality of the time. We turn to that issue next.
To summarize:• Skepticism about benefits of parenting time stems from data collected with old measures.
• Old measures reflected frequency of visits rather than quantity of parenting time.
• New measures reflect quantity of parenting time.

Distinctions between quantity of time and quality of time. Argys, et al. (2007) also
concluded, “There is no consensus on which measures of the quality of [non-resident] parentchild interaction matter most” (p. 396). This lack of consensus is manifest in Table 1, whichshows four recent studies of high-quality father involvement. These studies use three different
national surveys. The large national surveys include items that, to varying degrees, tap into thecentral constructs in our model (Figure 1); namely, the amount of direct interaction (IN) parents
and children have, the degree to which parents are responsive (RE) to children’s needs andrequests, and children’s emotional security (ES) in the parent-child relationship. Table 1 showsFabricius 7

the lack of consensus about the constructs of high-quality fathering that these researchers haveconstructed, and how each set of researchers idiosyncratically combines IN, RE, and ES items
into the same constructs.
The field needs more principled, theoretical analyses of the quality of non-resident parent
involvement and how it relates to parenting time. We think that the scheme represented in Figure
1 has good theoretical grounds and also that it makes good intuitive sense. First, according to theclassic analysis of Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, and Levine (1985) the time that parents and children
spend together can be divided into the time during which the parent is available to the child, andthe time during which they actually interact. For non-resident parents, parenting time (PT)provides availability. However, our scheme further distinguishes interaction into quantity (IN)and quality (RE). We do not mean to suggest that other parent behaviors are not also important,such as consistent discipline, monitoring, etc. Our point here is to distinguish between parent
behaviors (IN) that are more likely to be related to parenting time and parent behaviors (RE) thatare less likely to be related to parenting time.
Second, these three dimensions (IN, RE, and ES) are grounded in the central constructs
of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), in which parent availability for interaction andresponsiveness to the child both contribute to the security of the young child’s emotional
connection to the parent, and ultimately to the development of healthy independence. Parent
availability and responsiveness are parent behaviors that convey meaning to the child about thereliability of the parent’s continued support and caring. As Robert Karen (1998) summarizedattachment theory after reviewing its historical development and current research, “All yourchild needs in order to thrive both emotionally and intellectually is your availability andresponsiveness” (p. 416).

Fabricius 8

Third, we have discovered that these three dimensions are also foremost in adolescents’minds when they think about their relationships with their parents. We recruited 393 families for
our longitudinal study of the role of fathers in adolescent development, and we asked thechildren to describe their relationships with each of their parents in open-ended interviews when
they were in 7th grade and again when they were in 10th grade. The families were equallydivided between Anglo-American and Mexican-American families, and between intact andstepfather families (see Baham, Weimer, Braver, & Fabricius, 2008, and Schenck et al., in press,
for sample details). Regardless of which parent they described (resident mother, resident
biological father, resident stepfather, and nonresident biological father), virtually all adolescentsat both ages and in both ethnic groups spontaneously evaluated their relationships with theirparents in terms of IN (e.g., “She does a lot with us.” “Sometimes he’ll take me out tobasketball.” “Most of the time we really don’t spend time with each other.”), RE (e.g., “He’salways there for me.” “He tries not to ignore me.” “When I ask for help, she’s always too busy”),
and ES (e.g., “He can make me feel better.” “She’s nice but she can be mean.” “He yells at me alot.”). It is remarkable that adolescents still monitor and distinguish the same general types ofparent behaviors (IN and RE) that, according to attachment theory, initiated their attachment andemotional security with each of their parents when they were infants. This is consistent with
Aquilino’s (2006) finding that frequent contact during adolescence was the most important
predictor, among other measures of father involvement, of close relationships with fathers inyoung adulthood. The fact that these parent behaviors (IN and RE) continue to be important inadolescents’ representations of their relationships with their parents provides further justification
for maintaining this fundamental distinction in our model. As Bowlby (1969) always
emphasized, attachment process continue to operate throughout one’s life.

Fabricius 9

Figure 1 illustrates why we think that questions such as, “Is quantity of time or quality oftime more important for child outcomes?” or “Is parenting time or the parent-child relationshipmore important?” are straw man comparisons that need to be retired from the debate. As shownin Figure 1 parenting time helps build emotionally secure relationships via interaction, but so doother things including the parent’s responsiveness. Emotionally secure parent-child relationships
help insure positive child outcomes. Thus parenting time is farthest to the left in the causal chain,and things like parent responsiveness and the emotional security of the parent-child relationship(which are different constructs usually subsumed under the rubric “quality”) are farther to theright and closer to child outcomes. Things closer to child outcomes in the causal chain will havestronger correlations to child outcomes than things farther away. Asking whether parenting timeor various indices of quality are more important presupposes a theoretical model in which theyoccupy positions in the causal chain the same number of links away from child outcomes, but nosuch models are on offer. In the absence of such a model, it is an unfair question. In our model it
is fair to ask, for example, whether IN or RE is more important for ES. The question we focus on
below, however, is the more important one for courts and policy makers, and the one for which
we have new data: What is the strength of the relationship between PT and ES with the father?
To summarize:• Researchers usually measure but often confuse three things: the amount of directinteraction parents and children have, the degree to which parents are responsive tochildren’s needs and requests, and the emotional security of the parent-child relationship.
• These distinctions are grounded in attachment theory and also in adolescents’representations of their relationships with their parents.

Fabricius 10• Our model indicates that the quantity of parenting time should impact the quantity offather-child interaction, which in turn should impact the quality (i.e., security) of fatherchild relationship; parenting time should not impact the quality of father-child interaction(i.e., the fathers’ responsiveness).
• The question of whether quantity or quality of time is more important is a straw man.

New Findings on the Quantity of Parenting Time and the Quality of Parent-Child
Relationships. During the 2005 – 2006 academic year we surveyed 1030 students who reported
their parents had divorced before they were 16 years old. On average their parents had divorced
about 10 years earlier. They completed an on-line survey administered by the Psychology
Department for Introductory Psychology credit, and for which we received Institutional Review
Board human subjects approval. The survey included the parenting time questions in Footnote 4,
as well as a large number of questions about their past and current family relationships andsituations which allowed us to capture several aspects of the emotional security of theirrelationships with their parents with a single score for each relationship. Because these scores
represent how the students viewed their relationships at the time of the survey, when they weregenerally 18 to 20 years of age, they allow us to assess long-term associations between PT and
ES.
Figure 2 shows the relation between PT with the father and ES with the fathers. The
vertical line divides the PT scale at 13 – 15 days per “month” (i.e., 28 days). This represents 50%
PT with each parent. The father-child relationship improved with each increment of PT from 0%time with father to 50% (r = .51, N = 871, p < .001). From 50% to 100% PT with father thefather-child relationship did not show statistically significant change (r = .15, N = 152); theFabricius 11

smaller sample sizes in these categories in which children lived primarily with their fathersmeans that the zigzags are not reliable and probably represent random variation.
For simplicity in Figure 2, we do not also show the mother-child relationship scores. As
we have found in other studies (Fabricius, 2003; Fabricius & Luecken, 2003), the long-term
mother-child relationship mirrored the father-child relationship:; i.e., it remained constant witheach increment of PT from 0% to 50% time with father, and declined thereafter. These findings
indicate that when either parent has the child living with him or her for a majority of the time,increasing PT with the second parent is not associated with any risk of harm to the relationshipwith the first parent. Instead, increasing PT with the second parent is associated withimprovements in that relationship, and benefits continue to accrue up to and including equal PT. At
50% PT it appears that each relationship achieves its highest level of emotional security.
The strength of the association between PT and ES with father is substantial. A
correlation of .51 means that about 25% of the variability in relationship security across students
can be explained by PT. In our model, PT is just one of the things that impact ES, and it does soonly indirectly, through the amount of father-child IN that it makes possible. (Fabricius, et al.
(2010) reported other evidence that PT correlated significantly with IN, and that it did notcorrelate with RE.) The fact that PT accounted for about one-fourth of relationship security somany years later is important. Our hypothesis is that PT causes these changes, and although wecannot test causality directly, we considered the alternate hypothesis that the increase in ES
across PT categories from 0% to 50% was due to different fathers self-selecting into different
categories of PT. This might happen in two ways. Most of the disinterested fathers – those who
would ultimately end up with the worst relationships with their college aged children -- mightchoose, or be given, 0% PT, and progressively fewer such fathers might choose or be given each

Fabricius 12

PT category up to 50%. Or a similar, but reversed, self-selection process might occur for fathers
who are especially committed and capable.
We examined the feasibility of the self-selection explanation by first splitting the father
relationship scores into five equal groups (quintiles) from lowest to highest. The top 20% arethose fathers with the best relationships and, according to the self-selection hypothesis, are themost committed and capable. Those in the bottom 20% are presumably the most disinterested.
The self-selection hypothesis is that the increase in the security of father-child relationships
across PT from 0% to 50% is explained by the distribution of especially committed and/or
disinterested fathers across the PT categories. It would be unlikely according to that hypothesis
to find a significant correlation between PT and ES within either the top or bottom quintile. Thatwould require a remarkable degree of precision by which those especially committed ordisinterested fathers chose or were given PT categories that matched their abilities to eventuallyachieve corresponding levels of relationship security with their college-aged children. In fact,
there were significant positive correlations between PT and ES in both the top and bottom
quintiles, and also in two of the three middle quintiles. This suggests that the self-selection
explanation for the association between PT and ES in which the most committed fathers were
sorted into the higher categories of PT and/or the most disinterested fathers were sorted into thelower categories of PT is not sufficient to account for the details of the data. Fabricius et al.
(2010) also considered the self-selection hypothesis, but in light of the common finding thatfathers and children generally want more PT with father. They concluded that “the self-selection
hypothesis should be viewed with a new sense of skepticism” (p. 214). The new data shown in
Figure 2 provide additional cause for skepticism. The available evidence is more consistent withthe hypothesis that PT impacts father-child relationship security.

Fabricius 13

Studies in the past (i.e., those reviewed by Amato & Gilbreth, 1999) focused more on
associations between father–child contact and child outcomes such as depression, aggression,and school success, than on associations between contact and father–child relationships. This ischanging, however. Fabricius, et al. (2010) reviewed the studies that focus on associations
between contact and parent-child relationships. In contrast to the weak findings in studies ofcontact and outcomes, these studies find consistent associations between contact andrelationships. These and these are summarized in Table 2.
To summarize:• Consistent with our model, the long-term father-child relationship improves at each levelof parenting time; benefits continue to accrue up to and including equal PT; the long-term
mother-child relationship remains constant at each level of parenting time up to andincluding equal PT.
• The evidence so far is stronger that amount of parenting time exerts a causal effect on

relationship security, than that the association is due to self-selection.
• Many other studies also find consistent associations between father-child contact andfather–child relationships.
Trends in parenting time. Courts and policy makers need to be aware of changes incultural values and norms regarding parenting because custody policy and practice derive theirlegitimacy in part from accurate reflection of parenting values and norms (Fabricius, et al.,2010). There is now a strong consensus among the general public that under normal
circumstances, equal parenting time is best for the child. Large majorities favor it in all the
locales and among all the demographic groups in the United States and Canada in which thisquestion has been asked, and across several variations in question format, including variations

Fabricius 14that ask respondents to consider differences in how much predivorce child care each parent
provided, and differences in parent conflict. Table 3 summarizes these polls. This publicconsensus is probably best characterized as a cultural value about parenting rather than mere
opinion, given both its connection to the long-term historical trend toward gender equality, andthe evidence for its universality and robustness. We note that this cultural value is consistent withthe findings in Figure 2.
Regarding norms of practice, there appears to be a slow trend toward greater amounts ofparenting time with fathers, especially equal parenting time. In our data collected in 2005-06 inwhich the students’ parents had divorced on average 10 years earlier, about 9% of students
reported equal PT (50%). In Wisconsin the percentage of divorced parents with equal PT
increased from 15% in 1996-99 to 24% in 2003-04 (Brown & Cancian, 2007). In Washington thepercentage of divorced parents with equal PT was approximately 20% in 2008-09 (Washington
State Center for Court Research, 2009). In Arizona the percentage of case files specifying equal
PT tripled from 5% in 2002 (Venohr & Griffith, 2003) to 15% in 2007 (Venohr & Kaunelis,2008). The Arizona case files included both divorced and never married parents, whereas theother rates reflected only divorced parents. The practice of equal parenting time lags theconsensus about its value. Fabricius, et al. (2010) provide a discussion of the possible complex
reasons for the lag.
Courts also derive legitimacy from scientific findings. The findings about families thathave joint residential parenting are clear. In 2002, Bauserman published a comprehensive reviewof the research comparing joint versus sole custody. This review included 11 published and 22
unpublished (almost all doctoral dissertations) studies, comprising 1,846 sole-custody and 814
joint-custody children. The category of “joint custody” included joint physical custody as well asFabricius 15

joint legal custody with sole maternal physical. Children in joint custody were significantly
better off than those in sole custody (and about as well off as those in which the parents remained
married), in terms of general adjustment, family relationships, self-esteem, emotional andbehavioral adjustment, and divorce-specific adjustment. The joint legal custody families and thejoint physical custody families showed similar benefits, and both involved a “substantial
proportion of time actually spent living with each parent” (p. 93).
At issue though is the possibility that the “better” parents may have been the ones to want
joint residential custody. In the classic Stanford Child Custody Study (Maccoby & Mnookin,1992), the researchers statistically controlled for characteristics that might predispose parents
both to want joint residential custody and also to have more parenting skills and resources,
including education, income, and initial levels of interparental hostility. Even after controlling
for these characteristics, children in dual residence were still the ones who showed the greatest
satisfaction with their parenting arrangements, and had the best long-term adjustment (Maccoby,
Buchanan, Mnookin, & Dornbusch, 1993). Moreover, the great majority of joint residential
parents did not initially want and agree to joint residential custody. Maccoby and Mnookin(1992) gathered data at the predecree interview about parents’ initial preferences (“what he or
she would personally like in terms of residential custody, regardless of what in fact had been or
would be requested in the legal proceedings,” p. 99). Using the early waves of the Stanford Child
Custody Study (www.socio.com/srch/summary/afda/fam25–27.htm), we determined that there
were 92 families with joint residential custody in which the parents had expressed wishes for
either sole or joint residential custody. Both parents had initially wanted joint in only 19 of those
92 families. The largest subgroup of the joint residential custody families (N = 37) were thosewhere the mother had wanted sole residential custody for herself and the father had wanted joint.

Fabricius 16

In 19 families each parent had wanted sole for him- or herself. Thus very few parents initiallyagree on joint residential custody, and the great majority had to accept it over their initial
objections. About half accepted it after using some level of court services (mediation, custodyevaluation, trial, or judicial imposition). Nevertheless, those with joint residential custody had
the most well- adjusted children years later.
We turn now to the question that courts and policy makers face regarding parenting timeand parent conflict. Having considered the evidence and the underlying theory for the impact ofquantity of PT on emotional security of parent-child relationships, and the consistency between
the science and contemporary cultural parenting values, we consider next whether any of thatchanges in high-conflict families.
To summarize:All public opinion findings to date indicate widespread public endorsement of equal
parenting time.

There appears to be a slow trend toward equal parenting time in practice.

Children who have joint residential custody fare better than children in sole residential
custody; these findings do not seem to be simply due to “better” parents choosing joint
residential custody.

SHOULD PARENTING TIME BE LIMITED IN HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES?
Previous research is mixed, but can be sorted out. One of the vexing questions
confronting courts and policy makers concerns parenting time when there is high conflict
between parents. 5 The argument is often made that more parenting time exposes children to
more of the conflict, but that argument is a bit muddled. It is not clear that more parenting time
per se necessarily exposes children to more parent conflict. Parenting time schedules that giveFabricius 17

more frequent discrete periods of parenting time and thus more transitions between parents are
more likely to do so. In addition, it is not often acknowledged but the previous research on thisquestion is in fact quite mixed. On the one hand, Amato and Rezac (1994) and Hetherington,
Cox, and Cox (1978) found that more frequent contact in high-conflict families was related topoorer child outcomes. Johnston, Kline, & Tschann (1989) found that among the very highconflict families referred to court services for custody disputes that composed their sample,
greater amounts of visitation in sole-custody arrangements were generally harmful. Thesefindings have led some commentators (e.g, Amato, 1993; Emery, 1999) to advocate limiting
parenting time when high conflict prevails.
On the other hand, there is at least as much contrary evidence. Buchanan, Maccoby, andDornbush (1996) did not find that greater amounts of visitation were harmful in high-conflictfamilies, and Crosbie-Burnett (1991) did not find that more frequent contact was harmful inhigh-conflict families. Johnston et al.’s (1989) finding was restricted to sole custody families; thechildren in joint physical custody arrangements (in which children spent 12 to 13 days a monthwith their fathers) did not have worse adjustment than those in sole custody. Amato and Rezac’s(1994) finding was restricted to boys; girls who had more frequent contact in high-conflictfamilies did not have poorer outcomes. Healy, Malley and Stewart (1990) and Kurdek (1986)
found the opposite pattern, that more frequent visitation was actually associated with fewer
adjustment problems when parent conflict was high. Similarly, Fabricius and Luecken (2007)
found that more parenting time was associated with improvements in father-child relationships infamilies with both high and low frequency of conflict, and served to counteract the negative
effects of parent conflict on father-child relationship security.

Fabricius 18

The divergence of findings among these studies can be partly explained by whether
researchers measured frequency of contact, or amount of parenting time. Most researchers
measured frequency of contact (Amato & Rezak, 1994; Crosbie-Burnett, 1991; Healy et al.,
1990; Hetherington et al., 1978; Kurdek, 1986), and among those studies the results are mixed.
However, results were consistent among studies that measured amount of parenting time.
Buchanan et al. (1996) and Fabricius and Luecken (2007) found that more parenting time was
not harmful in high conflict families, and Johnston et al. (1989) found that dual residence was
not harmful in families referred to court services for custody disputes. Johnston et al. (1989) did
find that greater amounts of parenting time in sole-custody arrangements were harmful, but intheir study amount of parenting time and frequency of transitions happened to be substantiallycorrelated. Thus, sometimes studies indicate that more frequent contact and transitions between
conflicted parents’ homes can be harmful, presumably because they expose children to moreinstances of conflict. However, there are two ways to limit transitions; one is to eliminate some
visits, and the other is to combine some visits into longer, uninterrupted time periods. In the firstcase amount of parenting time would decrease, and in the second it could stay the same or
increase. The second approach remains viable—and is no doubt preferable—for high-conflictfamilies because there is no evidence that greater amounts of parenting time are harmful for mostchildren of conflicted parents, or that dual residence is harmful for children whose parents are
involved in lengthy custody disputes. On the contrary, evidence suggests that father-childrelationships can be strengthened through increased parenting time in high conflict families aswell as in low conflict families (Buchanan et al., 1996; Fabricius and Luecken, 2007; Johnston etal., 1989), and that strengthened parent-child relationships can shield children from some of theFabricius 19

effects of parent conflict (Fainsilber- Katz & Gottman, 1997; Sandler, et al., 2008; Vandewater& Lansford, 1998).
To summarize:• When researchers used the old measures of frequency of contact the findings sometimes

showed that more frequent contact was harmful in families with high parent conflict, andsometimes did not show it was more harmful; the harm might have been due to moretransitions in some families with higher frequency of contact.
• When researchers measured amount of parenting time the findings were more consistentthat more parenting time was not harmful and was beneficial even in high-conflictfamilies.
New findings when conflict is severe. We further examined this issue in the new 2005 –2006 data set described above. The measure of parent conflict in Fabricius and Luecken (2007)
asked about frequency of parent conflict. Here we examined a different measure that asked about
the severity of parent conflict before, during, and up to 5 years after their parents’ final
separation. Figure 3 shows the relation between PT and father-child ES for those students
reporting high versus low severity of parent conflict. It is clear that more parenting time isrelated to better father-child relationships in both levels of severity of parent conflict. Thesefindings on severity of parent conflict replicate and extend the Fabricius and Luecken (2007)
findings on frequency of conflict. It is important to state that these findings should not be taken
to apply to families in which there is violence or abuse, however.
To summarize:

Fabricius 20• The long-term father-child relationship improved with increases in parenting time infamilies in which parent conflict was less severe as well as in those in which it was more
severe.
• These findings should not be taken to apply to families in which there is violence orabuse, however.
LINKS TO CHILDREN’S LONG-TERM PHYSICAL HEALTH
Risky Families. The divorce literature has long documented the heightened risk of mental
health problems for children traceable to the disrupted parent-child relationships and parent
conflict that so often accompany divorce. The recent physical health literature that focuses on“risky families” is relevant to divorce research because it indicates profound effects on children’s
long-term, stress-related physical health attributable to these same family factors. It also gives us
insight into the underlying physiological mechanisms that are triggered by these factors. The
physical health findings have yet to make their way prominently into the divorce literature, andappear to be less well-known to courts and policy makers.
Rena Repetti, Shelley E. Taylor, and Teresa E. Seeman of the University of California,
Los Angeles, published the first review of the large physical health literature as it relates tofamily relationships in 2004 in the prestigious journal, Psychological Bulletin. They concluded
that dysfunctional family relationships “lead to consequent accumulating risk for mental healthdisorders, major chronic diseases, and early mortality” (p. 330, emphasis added). They reviewed
15 large, longitudinal physical health studies began decades ago, and which fortunately often
included a few questions about family relationships in addition to the more numerous questions
about diet, alcohol, exercise, smoking, etc. Findings consistently point to adverse healthconsequences to children of families characterized not only by high parent conflict, but also byFabricius 21

cold, unsupportive parent-child relationships, the so-called “risky families.” The researchsuggested that conflict between the parents and poor parent-child relationships exert similareffects.
Longitudinal studies revealed that family conflict and aggression related to an increased
risk of heart disease in boys, risk of cancer, minor infectious diseases, increased chance ofobesity in adulthood, poorer metabolic control over diabetes, and overall lower self-reported
health status. Cross-sectional studies showed links to poorer growth during infancy (Valenzuela,
1997), poorer general health (Gottman & Katz, 1989), and, among children with a diagnosed
medical problem, less control over the severe symptoms of the disease (Gil et al., 1987; Martin,
Miller-Johnson, Kitzmann, & Emery 1998).
Poor parent-child relationships were associated with higher rates of illness and physicalcomplaints several years later (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996, 1997; Wickrama, Lorenz, &Conger, 1997) and more serious medical conditions in midlife (Russek & Schwartz, 1997;
Shaffer, Duszynski, & Thomas, 1982). For instance, Russek and Schwartz (1997) examined datafrom Harvard undergraduate men in the early 1950’s who were asked to describe theirrelationship with each parent. Their descriptions were coded as positive (“very close” “warm andfriendly”) or negative (“tolerant” “strained and cold”). Twelve percent of relationships withmothers and 20% with fathers were coded negative. Thirty-five years later the researchers
obtained health status based on in-person interviews and review of available medical records. Of
the men who described a negative relationship with either their mother or their father, 85–91%
had developed cardiovascular disease, duodenal ulcer, and/or alcoholism compared to only 45–
50% of those who had described positive relationships. It is noteworthy that these studies began
in the 1950’s and 1960’s when mothers were almost exclusive caregivers, so the fact that they

Fabricius 22

show that a poor relationship with either the mother or the father had similar effects indicatesthat the health risks associated with disrupted parent-child relationships are not limited to theprimary caregiver
When assessments of parent–child relationships and parent conflict were made in thesame study, researchers see similar effects associated with each. For example, Shaffer et al.
(1982) examined data from White male physicians who graduated from medical school between
1948 and 1964 and described their family members’ attitudes toward each other as either positive(warm, close, understanding, confiding) or negative (detached, dislike, hurt, high-tension). Men
who described more negative and less positive family relationships were at increased risk of
future cancer, even after controlling for health risk factors such as age, alcohol use, cigarettesmoking, being overweight, and serum cholesterol levels.
To summarize:

Families characterized by either parent conflict or poor parent-child relationships poseserious long-term health risks to children, including early mortality.



These studies began in the 1950’s and 1960’s when mothers were almost exclusive
caregivers, and they show that a poor relationship with either the mother or the father had
similar effects, thus the findings are not limited to just the primary caregiver
The Stress Response System as the Mechanism by Which Risky Families Can Damage

Health. Repetti, et al. (2002) found evidence that risky families affect children’s physical healthvia cumulative disturbances established during infancy and early childhood in physiologic andneuroendocrine system regulation (i.e., disruptions in sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM)
reactivity, hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical (HPA) reactivity, and serotonergic
functioning). Such disruptions can have effects on organs, including the brain, and on systems,

Fabricius 23

including the immune system. The emerging consensus (Troxel & Matthews, 2004; Ripetti et al..
2004) is that the social processes of parent conflict and poor parent-child relationships cause
constant stress in the home which chronically activates and thereby dysregulates children’s
biological stress responses, leading to deterioration of cardiovascular system functioning andhypertension (e.g., Ewart, 1991) and coronary heart disease (e.g., Woodall & Matthews, 1989),
and possibly hindering children’s acquisition of emotional competence and self-regulatory skills(e.g., Camras et al., 1988; Dunn & Brown, 1994; Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, Tesla, &Youngblade, 1991).
Psychological processes add the cognitive and emotional dimensions to thisdysregulation. In modern attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), poor parent-child relationships leadto feelings of insecurity, anger, distrust in continued parental support, and low self-worth, which
can by themselves chronically activate and dysregulate children’s biological stress responses. In
Davies & Cummings’ (1994) attachment-based theory, parent conflict similarly leads toemotional insecurity because the child fears abandonment by one or both fighting parents. We
have represented this in Figure 1, where parent conflict is a parent behavior like parent-childinteraction and responsiveness. Parent conflict can also lead parents to withdraw from thechildren and reduce their interaction and responsiveness (e.g., Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, &Weirson, 1990; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984; Parke & Tinsley, 1981), and thus can also
indirectly affect the child’s felt security in the parent-child relationship, but for simplicity wehave not included that more complex path in the model.
This emotional security mechanism is not an abstract concoction. It incorporates the“fight-or-flight” response system that we experience in acute form when our security isthreatened, for example, by someone pulling a gun or by hearing footsteps behind in an empty

Fabricius 24

parking structure. One of the greatest advances in modern psychology has been to see how thissystem functions during the child’s normal development in the family. The primary threats tosafety and protection that the helpless human infant and young child’s system is attuned to detectare parent absence, parent unresponsiveness, and parent conflict. In acute form, they elicit inchildren the same shortness of breath, increased blood pressure and heart rate, fear, etc. that weall experience when threatened, because they are caused by the instantaneous release of the same
powerful hormones. Children in families characterized by dysfunctional parent conflict andunsupportive parent-child relationships experience these threats repeatedly and learn to anticipate
them when they are absent. This exposes these children to chronic, low-level doses of these
hormones, which is what causes the long-term health problems.
When we consider that almost 40% of the college students from divorced families that werecently surveyed had had minimal parenting time with their fathers, and then when we look at
Figure 3 and see the destroyed relationships those who had minimal parenting time now have as
young adults with their fathers, and when we link that with the lifetime health outcomes ofyoung adults who had reported similarly distant relationships with their parents, we should be
alarmed at the extent of the personal suffering -- and at the scope of the public health problem –that they represent. When we look at Figure 3 and see that those who also experienced severe
parent conflict have even worse relationships with their fathers, we should be even moreconcerned.
To summarize:Consistent with attachment theory, when parents are unavailable, unresponsive, or inconflict with each other, children perceive this as a threat to their continued support,
which leads to chronic activation of the stress response system.

Fabricius 25

Chronic activation can damage organs and systems.
Mechanisms available to courts and policy makers to reduce health risks to children of

divorce. These findings indicate that high parent conflict and unsupportive relationships are
formidable risks associated with a number of mental health problems and major illnesses later inlife. The implication is that family courts and policy makers should give equal consideration tominimizing parent conflict and strengthening parent-child relationships because of their similar
long-term health consequences. Many jurisdictions do have policies and interventions regarding
reducing parent conflict and strengthening parent-child relationships by promoting positiveparenting.
When dealing with the question of whether parenting time should be limited in highconflict families, courts should consider the potential risk of damaging parent-child relationships
by reducing parenting time. The evidence indicates that in divorced families with frequent andsevere parent conflict more parenting time with the father is associated with an improvement in
the father-child relationship. Limiting parenting time when there is parent conflict limits theamount of interaction children can have with that parent, which risks undermining the parentchild relationship and risks making those children doubly vulnerable to long-term damage totheir physical health. Courts have better options to deal with children’s exposure to parent
conflict than reducing parenting time, such as schedules with fewer transitions, or transitions that
do not require face-to-face parent interactions. The evidence suggests that parent conflict alone
should not be the basis for limiting parenting time; rather, the data indicate that courts should
weigh the option of increasing parenting time in high-conflict families. We are aware that thisflies in the face of the accepted wisdom and practice of limiting parenting time in high-conflictfamilies. But as we have discussed, the arguments for the accepted wisdom and practice are notFabricius 26

based on strong empirical evidence that increased parenting time is harmful to children in highconflict families. Our recommendation to consider increasing parenting time in high-conflictfamilies is consistent with Repetti et al.’s (2004) conclusion that parent conflict and parent-childrelationships can have independent effects on children’s health. That means that parents inconflictual relationships are not necessarily also the ones who are cold and unsupportive with
their children. That implies that parent-child relationships can be improved in high-conflictfamilies. Direct evidence that improved parent-child relationships can counteract some harmful
effects of parent conflict is available (Fainsilber- Katz & Gottman, 1997; Sandler, et al., 2008;
Vandewater & Lansford, 1998).
The allocation of parenting time is an important tool that courts and policy makers haveto strengthen parent-child relationships in all families. Evidence and theory both suggest that thequantity of parenting time impacts the long-term quality of the father-child relationship via theincreased parent-child interaction it allows. We argued that the evidence in Figure 2 makes arelatively strong argument that parenting time exerts a causal influence on parent-childrelationships. That argument is also supported by the theoretical explanation of the causal
influence provided by attachment theory. We have been especially impressed by how importantparent-child interaction is to adolescents, as indicated by the central role it plays in theirrepresentations of their relationships with their parents. They closely monitor the amount ofinteraction they have with each of their parents, and evaluate whether it is personally sufficient.
Attachment theory identifies parent availability as one of the potential threats that the child’s
emotional security system is designed to monitor. Time spent interacting is one way thatemotionally close and supportive relationships develop, and time lost risks exposing children tochronic stress and disrupted parent relationships, even in adolescence (e.g., Aquilino, 2006).

Fabricius 27

Courts and policy makers may be reluctant to consider the allocation of parenting time asa tool to strengthen parent-child relationships because they often receive the following expert
advice or testimony: (a) Quality is more important than quantity of parenting time, and (b)Policies that might encourage any particular level of parenting time should be avoided because
we do not know what level of parenting time is best for any individual family. We have alreadydiscussed the reasons why (a) is an unfair comparison. Here we would like to offer an analogy:
Level of education affects the types of jobs people get, which in turn affects their lifetime
earnings, but economists do not frame the question as, “Which is more important for determining
lifetime earnings, level of education or type of job?” Education has an indirect effect, so thiseither/or question is not useful. The correlation between job type and earnings will be stronger
than the correlation between education level and earnings, but that would not prompt economists
to advocate for less attention being given to education.
To carry the analogy further, society takes it for granted that we do not know what levelof education is best for any individual, and that we cannot prescribe the same level of educationfor everyone. But society nevertheless endorses policies that inform people of the importance of
education for lifetime earning potential, that make education available to all who want it, andthat encourage education even to the extent of prescribing a minimum level for all children.
Similarly, courts and policy makers cannot know what level of parent conflict, or what level of
security of parent-child relationships are acceptable for any family. They nevertheless institutepolicies that encourage parents to reduce conflict and strengthen relationships. Courts and policy
makers could likewise institute policies that encourage parents to maximize parenting time forboth parents within the constraints of individual families’ situations

Fabricius 28

The strong connection between parenting time and father-child relationships in divorced
families with both low and high levels of parent conflict, and the evidence and theoreticalunderstanding that have built over decades about how unsupportive parent-child relationships
impair long-term health means that the lingering situation of minimal parenting time for great
numbers of children is a public health issue that demands the attention of researchers, policymakers, and individual courts. Much research (reviewed in Fabricius, et al., 2010) shows thatchildren and divorced fathers generally want more parenting time. We do not see a compelling
reason to doubt that absent any unusual circumstances, granting and encouraging more parenting
time, especially in high-conflict families, will be a good thing for children.

GUIDELINES: CONSIDERATIONS AND CAUTIONS•

Courts and policy makers should give equal consideration to minimizing parent conflictand strengthening parent-child relationships because of their similar long-term healthconsequences for children.

Courts have better options to deal with children’s exposure to parent conflict than
reducing parenting time because that might risk damaging the parent-child relationship;
better options include schedules with fewer transitions, or transitions that do not requireface-to-face parent interactions.

•

Evidence and theory both suggest that quantity of parenting time impacts the child’s
long-term security in the father-child relationship, which makes it another important toolcourts have to strengthen parent-child relationships.



Courts and policy makers should institute policies that encourage parents to maximize
parenting time for both parents within the constraints of individual families’ situations.

Fabricius 29

References
Aquilino, W. S. (2006). The noncustodial father–child relationship from adolescence into young
adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 929–946. DOI: 10.1111/j.17413737.2006.00305.x
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and empiricalsupport. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(1), 23–38. DOI: 10.2307/352954
Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A metaanalysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 557–573. DOI: 10.2307/353560
Amato, P. R., & Rezac, S. J. (1994). Contact with nonresidential parents, interparental conflict,and children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15(2), 191–207.
DOI:10.1177/0192513X94015002003
Argys, L. H., Peters, E. Cook, S. Garasky, S., Nepomnyaschy L., & Sorensen, E. (2006).
Measuring contact between children and nonresident fathers. In S. Hofferth & L. Casper(Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Braver, S, L., Ellman, I. M., Votruba, A. M., & Fabricius, W. V. (in press). Lay judgments aboutchild custody after divorce. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law.
Baham, M. E., Weimer, A. A., Braver, S. L., & Fabricius, W. V. (2008) Sibling relationships inblended families. In J. Pryor (Ed.), The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy
and practice in legal, research and clinical spheres (pp. 175–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brown. P. & Cancian, M. (2007). Wisconsin’s 2004 shared-physical-placement guidelines: Theiruse and implications in divorce cases. University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for
Research on Poverty.

Fabricius 30

Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Camras, L. A., Ribordy, S., Hill, J., Martino, S., Spaccarelli, S., & Stefani, R. (1988).
Recognition and posing of emotional expressions by abused children and their mothers.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 776–781. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.776
Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father custody and contact for thepsychological well-being of school-age children. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 17, 239–270. DOI: 10.1016/S0193-3973(96)90027-1
Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. L. (2007). Reciprocal longitudinal relations between nonresident
father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132–147. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00989.x
Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1991). Impact of joint versus sole custody and quality of the coparental
relationship on adjustment of adolescents in remarried families. Behavioral Sciences andthe Law, 9, 439–449. DOI:10.1002/bsl.2370090407
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional
security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–411. DOI: 10.1037/00332909.116.3.387
Dunn, J., & Brown, J. (1994). Affect expression in the family, children’s understanding of
emotions, and their interactions with others. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 120–137.
Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young children’s
understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs: Individual differences and theirantecedents. Child Development, 62, 1352–1366. DOI: 10.2307/1130811
Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce and children’s adjustment (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:Fabricius 31

Sage.
Ewart, C. K. (1991). Familial transmission of essential hypertension, genes, environments, andchronic anger. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 40–47.
Fabricius W. V., & Braver, S. L. (2003). Non–child support expenditures on children by
nonresidential divorced fathers. Family Court Review, 41(3), 321–336.
DOI:10.1111/j.174-1617.2003.tb00894.x
Fabricius W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., & Velez, C.E. (2010). Custody and parenting time: Links
to family relationships and well-being after divorce, In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of thefather in child development (5th edition, pp. 201 - 240). New York: Wiley.
Fabricius, W. V., & Luecken, L. J. (2007). Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, andlong-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family
Psychology, 21(2), 195–205. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.195
Fainsilber Katz, L., & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Buffering children from marital conflict anddissolution. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(2) 157-171. DOI:
10.1207/s15374424jccp2602_4
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A.M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the
impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The
role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112 – 1123. DOI: 10.2307/1130879
Gil, K. M., Keefe, F. J., Sampson, H. A., McCaskill, C. C., Rodin, J., & Crisson, J. E. (1987).
The relation of stress and family environment to atopic dermatitis symptoms in children.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 31, 673–684. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3999(87)90016-X
Goldberg, W.A. & Easterbrooks, M.A. (1984). Role of marital quality in toddler development.
Developmental Psychology, 20, 504 – 514. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.20.3.504

Fabricius 32

Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young children’s peerinteraction and health. Developmental Psychology, 25, 373–381. DOI: 10.1037/00121649.25.3.373
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and theemotional life of families. Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family
Psychology, 10, 243–268. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.24
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (Eds.). (1997). Meta-emotion: How families
communicate emotionally. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, Kathleen Mullan, Francesca Florey, Joyce Tabor, Peter S. Bearman, Jo Jones, and J.
Richard Udry. 2003. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research
Design (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design).
Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2007). Nonresident father involvement andadolescent well-being: Father effects or child effects? American Sociological Review,
72(6), 990–1010. DOI: 10.1177/000312240707200607
Healy, J. M., Malley, J. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1990). Children and their fathers after parental
separation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 531–543. DOI:10.1037/h0079201
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). The aftermath of divorce. In J. H. Stevens, Jr.,
& M. Matthews (Eds.), Mother–child, father–child relations. Washington, DC: National
Association for Education of Young Children. DOI: 34:851-858
Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving
allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans.
Family Court Review, 46(3), 500–522. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00216.x
Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann, J. M. (1989). Ongoing postdivorce conflict: Effects on

Fabricius 33

children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59,
576–592. DOI:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1989.tb02748.x
Juby, H., Billette, J.-M., Laplante, B., & Le Bourdais, C. (2007). Nonresident fathers andchildren: Parents’ new unions and frequency of contact. Journal of Family Issues, 28,
1220–1245. DOI: 10.1177/0192513X07302103
Karen, R, (1998) Becoming attached: First relationships and how they shape our capacity tolove. New York: Oxford.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence:
Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–
499. DOI:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x
King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers
and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910–928.
DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00304.x
Kurdek, L. A. (1986). Custodial mothers’ perceptions of visitation and payment of child support
by noncustodial fathers in families with low and high levels of preseparation interparent
conflict. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7(4), 307–323. DOI:10.1016/0193-3973(86)90002-X
Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985). Paternal behavior in humans.
883 – 894.
Lamb, M. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2009). Improving the quality of parent–child contact in separating
families with infants and young children: Empirical research foundations. In R. M.
Galatzer- Levy, L. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custodydecisions (pp. 187-214). (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Fabricius 34

Laumann-Billings, L., & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 671–687. DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.14.4.671
Maccoby, E. E., Buchanan, C. M., Mnookin, R. H., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Postdivorceroles of mothers and fathers in the lives of their children: Families in transition. Journalof Family Psychology, 7(1), 24–38. 10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.24
Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas ofcustody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Martin, M. T., Miller-Johnson, S., Kitzmann, K. M., & Emery, R. E. (1998). Parent–childrelationships and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: Observational ratings of clinically
relevant dimensions. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 102–111. DOI: 10.1037/08933200.12.1.102
Parke, R.D. & Tinsley, B.R. (1983). The father’s role in infancy: Determinants of involvement in
caregiving and play. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (2nded., pp. 429 – 458). New York: Wiley.
Repetti, R.L., Taylor, S.E. & Seeman, T.E. (2002). Risky families: Family social environments
and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330–366.
DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.33
Russek, L. G., & Schwartz, G. E. (1997). Feelings of parental caring can predict health status in
mid-life: A 35-year follow-up of the Harvard Mastery of Stress study. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 20, 1–13. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025525428213
Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J., & Braver, S. (2008) Effects of father and mother parenting onchildren’s mental health in high- and low-conflict divorces Family Court Review, 46(2),282–296. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00201.x

Fabricius 35

Schenck, C. E., Braver, S. L., Wolchik, S. A., Saenz, D., Cookston, J. T., & Fabricius, W.V. (inpress). Do I matter to my (step- and non-residential) dad?: The relation between
perceived mattering and adolescent mental health problems. Fathering. DOI:
10.3149/fth.0701.70
Shaffer, J. W., Duszynski, K. R., & Thomas, C. B. (1982). Family attitudes in youth as a possible
precursor of cancer among physicians: A search for explanatory mechanisms. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 5, 143– 163. DOI: 10.1007/BF00844805
Smyth, B. M. (2004). Parent–child contact schedules after divorce. Family Matters, 69, 32–43.
Sobolewski, J. M., & King, V. (2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for
nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196–1212.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x
Stewart, S. D. (2003). Nonresident parenting and adolescent adjustment: The quality ofnonresident father–child interaction. Journal of Family Issues, 24(2), 217–244. DOI:
10.1177/0192513X02250096
Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the National Survey of
Families and Households. NSFH Working Paper No. 1.
Troxel, W. M., & Matthews, K. A. (2004). What are the costs of marital conflict and dissolution
to children’s physical health? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 29–57.
DOI: 10.1023/B:CCFP.0000020191.73542.b0
Valenzuela, M. (1997). Maternal sensitivity in a developing society: The context of urban
poverty and infant chronic undernutrition. Developmental Psychology, 33, 845–855. DOI:
10.1037/0012-1649.33.5.845
Vandewater, E., & Lansford, J. (1998). Influences of family structure and parental conflict onFabricius 36

children’s well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323–330. DOI: 10.2307/585263
Venohr, J. C., & Griffith, T. E. (2003). Arizona child support guidelines: Findings from a casefile review. Denver: Policy Studies.
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/CSGRC/repository/2003-CaseFileRev.pdf
Venohr, J. C., & Kaunelis, R. (2008). Arizona child support guidelines review: Analysis of casefile data. Denver: Policy Studies.
http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/CSGRC/repository/2009-CaseFileRev.pdf
Washington State Center for Court Research (2009).
http://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/ResidentialTimeSummaryReport2009.pdf
Wickrama, K. A. S., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Parental support and adolescentphysical health status: A latent growth-curve analysis. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 38, 149–163. DOI: 10.2307/2955422
Woodall, K. L., & Matthews, K. A. (1989). Familial environment associated with Type A
behaviors and psychophysiological responses to stress in children. Health Psychology, 8,403–426. DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.8.4.403

Fabricius 37

Footnotes
1

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79); National Survey of America’s

Families (NSAF); National Survey of Families and Households 1987 (NSFH87) and 1992
(NSFH92; Sweet, Bumpass, & Call; 1988).).
2

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health 1995-1996 (ADD HEALTH 95;

Harris, et al. 2003); National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97); Britain’s Avon
Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children 1991 (ALSPAC91; Golding, 1996), Canada’s
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 1994–1995 (NLSCY94; Juby, Billette,
Laplante, & Le Bourdais, 2007); Wisconsin Child Support Demonstration Evaluation – Mother
Survey, late 1990’s (WCSDE).
3“Six questions were asked of parents who reported that a set pattern of face-to-facecontact was occurring: Is your contact arrangement based on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly
schedule? Each [week/fortnight/month], how many blocks of contact usually occur? Thinking
about [each] block of contact: What day of the week does contact usually start? What time on[day of the week] does the contact visit usually begin? What day of the week does contact
usually end? What time on [day of the week] does the contact visit usually end?” (Smyth. 2004;
p. 36)
4“Considering the most typical living arrangement you had after the divorce, what was(a) the number of days you spent any time at all with your father in an average 2-week period
during the school year [0 to 14]? (b) the number of overnights (i.e., sleepovers) you spent withyour father in an average 2-week period during the school year [0 to 14]? (c) the number ofschool vacation weeks out of 15 (Christmas = 2 weeks, spring = 1 week, summer = 12 weeks)

Fabricius 38

during which your time with your father was different from what it was during the school year [0to 15]? And (d) the percentage of time you spent with your father during those vacation weeks
above that were different from the regular schedule [0% to 100% in 10% increments]?”5

Because of the complexity of the issue and because of space limitations, we are notincluding here conflict that reaches the level of physical violence. Lamb & Kelly (2009) have agood discussion of this, and reference the quickly changing consensus view observed by Jaffe,Johnston, Crooks, & Bala (2008) and Kelly and Johnson (2008) that types and duration of thephysical violence must be distinguished.

39

Table 1
Constructs, Items, and Source of Data in Four Studies of High‐Quality Father Involvement and How theItems Map Onto the Constructs in Our Model in Figure 1_____________________________________________________________________________________
Study, construct and items
Data set
PT
IN
RE
ES
______________________________________________________________________________
Sobolewski & King (2005)
NSFH92Father‐child relationship quality
Likely you would talk to fatherxAdmire fatherxOverall relationshipx
Father praised or complainedx
Responsive fathering
Father explains reasonsx
Father talks over decisions
x
Father changed mind because of child’s ideasx
Dunn et al (2004)
ALSPAC91
Child‐father positivity
Enjoyment of fatherxWarmth in relationshipx
ConfidingxTime spent together
xChild‐father conflict
Level of punishmentx
Levels of parent and child upsetxFrequency of disagreementx
Hawkins, Amato, King (2007)
ADD HEALTH 95
Active fathering
Frequency of Contactx
Shared activitiesx
Communicationx
Emotional closenessx
Stewart (2003)
ADD HEALTH 95
Relationship quality
Went shopping togetherxPlayed a sport togetherxWent to movie, play, museum, concert, sports eventx
Authoritative parenting
Worked together on school projectx
Talked about import personal or school issues
xCloseness to father
How close do you feel to fatherx__________________________________________________________________________________
PT = Parenting Time; IN = Interaction; RE = Responsiveness; ES = Emotional Security with Father

40

Table 2
Studies of Associations between Father–Child Contact and Father–Child Relationships
Study

MeasuresFindings

Buchanan et al. (1996)

Amount of parenting time
including number ofovernights

Adolescents with 2 or more overnights per week
had better relationships with both parents thanthose in sole residence; those in sole motherresidence had better relationships with father ifthey had some parenting with him

Dunn, et al. (2004); King(2006); Sobolewski &King (2005); King &Sobolewski (2006);
Aquilino (2006)

Frequency of father-childcontact

Strong associations between frequency ofcontact and higher father–child relationshipqualityPeters & Ehrenberg (2008)

Amount of parenting time

Young adults who had more parenting time
experienced higher levels of affective, nurturing
fathering, which was likely an indication offather–adolescent closeness.

Fabricius (2003); Fabricius& Luecken (2007);
Luecken & Fabricius(2003)

Amount of parenting time

College students who had more parenting time
had better relationships with fathers

Struss, Pfeiffer, Preuss, &Felder (2001)

Quantity of father-childinteraction during
parenting timeMore father-child interaction predicted
adolescents’ positive feelings about visiting

Clarke-Stewart &Hayward (1996)

Quantity of father-childinteraction during
parenting time; frequency
and length of visits

Quantity of interaction, as well as frequency andlength of visits, were related to the father–childrelationshipWhiteside & Becker(2000)

Meta-analysis of studies offrequency of father-childcontactMore frequent contact related to better fatherchild relationships

41

Table 3Public Opinion Polls about Equal Parenting Time
Reference

Participants

Questions

Responses

Fabricius & Hall (2000)

AZ college
students

What is the best
living arrangement?

70% to 80% said “equal time withboth parents; no difference due togender or whether their parents
were divorced.

Massachusetts ballot 2006

Voting citizens

Should there be apresumption forjoint physicalcustody?

86% said yes.

Braver, Ellman, Votruba &Fabricius (in press)

Tucson AZ jury
Pools

Repeated wordingof the MA ballot
question

90% said yes; no differences due toany demographic variables

Scenarios in which
participants wereasked to award
parenting time.

Participants most commonly
awarded equal parenting time evenwhen one parent had provided mostchild care and when there was highmutual parent conflict; when one
parent instigated the conflict they
awarded more time to the other.

Do you support
legislation to createa presumption ofequal parenting inchild custody cases?

78% said yes

Canadian National Poll
www.nanosresearch.com

Random Telephone
Survey of 1,002
Canadians fromMarch 13th toMarch 18th, 2009

42

Figure 1.
Conceptual Model Relating Parenting Time to Parent Behaviors,
Children’s Emotional Security with Father, and Children’s Health Outcomes

Parent Behaviors
ParentingTime

Father-ChildInteraction
FatherResponsiveness
ParentConflictChildren’s
Emotional
Security
with Father

Children’s
HealthOutcomes

43

Figure 2.
The relation between the amount of parenting time per month (4 weeks) students had with theirfathers and the emotional security of their current relationships with their fathers.

44

45

Figure 3.
The relation between the amount of parenting time per month (4 weeks) students had with theirfathers and the emotional security of their current relationships with their fathers for thosereporting high versus low severity of parent conflict