|
Research - Child contact
Social and Vital Statistics Division
Office for National Statistics
1 Drummond Gate
London
SW1V 2QQ
Contact points
For any enquiries about this report, or the Omnibus in general
contact
Alison Blackwell
Tel: 020 7533 5749
E-mail: Omnibus@ons.gov.uk
For general enquiries contact the National Statistics
Enquiry Centre on 0845 601 3034 (minicom: 01633 812399)
E-mail:
info@statistics.gov.uk
Fax: 01633 652 747
Letters: Room D115, Government Buildings,
Cardiff Road,
Newport
NP10 8XG
You can also find National Statistics on the
Internet at www.statistics.gov.uk
About the Office for National Statistics
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the government
agency responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating
many of the United Kingdom’s economic, social and demographic
statistics, including the retails price index, trade figures
and labour market data, as well as the periodic census of
population and health statistics. The Director of ONS is also
the National Statistician and the Registrar General for England
and Wales, and the agency administers the statutory registration
of births, marriages and deaths there.
A National Statistics publication
Official statistics bearing the National Statistics logo are
produced to high professional standards set out in the National
Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality
assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs.
They are produced free from any political interference.
CONTENTS
List of figures and tables 4
Notes to report 7
Summary 9
1. Introduction 13
2. Baseline figures for contact between child
and non-resident parent 17
3. Frequency of contact with the non-resident
parent 19
4. Satisfaction with frequency of contact 36
5. Contact arrangements with the non-resident
parent 41
Appendices
A The Omnibus Survey
B Copy of the paper questionnaires
C Statistical terms and their interpretation
List of Figures
Page
Figure 3.1 Frequency of direct contact 7
Figure 3.2 Frequency of indirect contact 8
Figure 3.3 Frequency of direct and indirect
contact 11
Figure 3.4 Location of contact visits 18
Figure 3.5 Frequency of overnight stay 19
Figure 3.6 How maintenance arrangements were
agreed 21
Figure 4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
23
Figure 4.2 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
by frequency 25
of direct contact
Figure 4.3 Proportion of children whose responding
parent said that 27
they would like the non-resident parent to have more contact
with the child
Figure 5.1 Type of contact arrangement 30
Figure 5.2 Type of contact arrangement by distance
child lives 31
from non-resident parent
Figure 5.3 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
by type of 36
contact arrangement
Figure 5.4 Improvements to contact arrangements
39
List of tables
Table 1.1 Profile of parents who responded to
the survey
Table 1.2 Profile of children in the two sample
groups
Table 2.1 Contact arrangements with non-resident
parent
Table 2.2 Contact arrangements with non-resident
parent (at least once a week and less than once a week)
Table 2.3 Direct and indirect contact with non-resident
parent (at least once a week and less than once a week)
Table 2.4 Children who stay overnight with their
non-resident parent at least once a week compared with children
who have contact with their non-resident parent less often
Table 3.1 Frequency of direct contact
Table 3.2 Frequency of indirect contact
Table 3.3 Frequency of direct contact by frequency
of indirect contact
Table 3.4 Frequency of direct contact by distance
non-resident parent lives from child
Table 3.5 Frequency of indirect contact by distance
non-resident parent lives from child
Table 3.6 Frequency of direct and indirect contact
by distance non-resident parent lives from child
Table 3.7 Frequency of contact by length of
time since parents separated
Table 3.8 Frequency of contact by age of child
Table 3.9 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency
of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child
and length of time since parents separated - resident parent
(Model one)
Table 3.10 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency
of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child
and length of time since parents separated - resident parent
(Model two)
Table 3.11 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency
of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child
and length of time since parents separated – non-resident
parent (Model one)
Table 3.12 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency
of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child
and length of time since parents separated– non-resident
parent (Model two)
Table 3.13 Frequency of contact by age of responding
parent
Table 3.14 Frequency of contact by sex of responding
parent
Table 3.15 Frequency of contact by responding
parent’s region of residence
Table 3.16 Frequency of contact by ethnic group
of responding parent
Table 3.17 Frequency of contact by socio-economic
group of responding parent
Table 3.18 Frequency of contact by whether responding
partner has a new partner and children with that partner
Table 3.19 Characteristics of the child’s
responding parent in cases where the non-resident parent has
no direct contact with the child
Table 3.20 Where direct contact takes place
by frequency of contact
Table 3.21 How often child stays over night
with non-resident parent
Table 3.22 Proportion of children who stay overnight
with non-resident parent by (a) frequency of direct contact,
(b) distance between non-resident parent’s home and
that of the child, (c) length of time parents have been separated,
and (d) age of child
Table 3.23 Whether non-resident parent is currently
paying maintenance for the child by frequency of contact
Table 3.24 How the maintenance agreements were
made by the children’s parents
Table 4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
Table 4.2 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
by frequency of direct contact
Table 4.3 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
by distance non-resident parent lives from child
Table 4.4 Proportion of children in each sample
whose responding parent said that more contact between the
non-resident parent and the child would improve the contact
arrangements by frequency of direct contact
Table 5.1 Type of contact arrangement
Table 5.2 Type of contact arrangement by age
of child
Table 5.3 Type of contact arrangement by distance
non-resident parent lives from child
Table 5.4 Type of contact arrangement by length
of time since parents separation
Table 5.5 Type of contact arrangement by frequency
of contact
Table 5.6 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency
of contact by type of contact arrangement - resident parent
Table 5.7 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency
of contact by type of contact arrangement - Non-resident parent
Table 5.8 Type of contact arrangement by gender
of non-resident parent
Table 5.9 Type of contact arrangement by social-economic
group
Table 5.10 Type of contact arrangements by ethnicity
Table 5.11 Type of contact arrangement by educational
level
Table 5.12 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
Table 5.13 Satisfaction by type of contact arrangement
Table 5.14 Satisfaction by length of time since
parents separation
Table 5.15 Satisfaction by whether parent has
repartnered and has children with new partner
Table 5.16 Improvements to contact arrangements
Table A.1 Household level response of the Omnibus Survey for
the months in which the non-resident parental contact questions
were asked (April, June, July, August, September, October,
November)
Table A.2 Response to the full module –
April, June, July, August, September, October, November
Notes to tables
1. Very small bases have been avoided wherever
possible because of the relatively high sampling errors that
attach to small numbers. In general, percentage distribution
are shown if the base is 30 or more. Where the base is smaller
than this, actual numbers are shown within square brackets.
2. A percentage may be quoted in the text for
a single category that is identifiable in the tables only
by summing two or more component percentages. In order to
avoid rounding errors, the percentage has been recalculated
for the single category and therefore may differ by one percentage
point from the sum of the percentages derived from the tables.
3. The row or column percentages may add to
99% or 101% because of rounding.
4. Unless otherwise stated, changes and differences
mentioned in the text have been found to be statistically
significant.
Summary
1 Introduction
• Non-resident parents are respondents who have had
a child from a previous relationship which has broken down
and the child lives with the other birth parent. Resident
parents are respondents who live with a child from a previous
relationship and the other birth parent does not live with
them.
• The achieved sample comprises of 649 respondents who
were resident parents and 312 respondents who were non-resident
parents. There were 26 respondents who were both a resident
parent and a non-resident parent.
• The majority of resident parents were female while
the majority of non-resident parents were male.
• Approximately half the parent sample were aged between
31 and 40 years. A larger proportion of the resident parent
sample were younger than the non-resident parent sample.
• Most parents had either one or two children from a
previous relationship.
• In total, parents reported on contact arrangements
for 1,506 children.
• Analysis of the data, within this report,
has been carried out at the child level.
2 Baseline figures for contact between child
and non-resident parent
• Contact between the non-resident parent and their
child can take a number of different forms and can be divided
into two categories: direct and indirect contact. For the
purposes of this report direct contact is defined as face-to-face
contact between the child and the non-resident parent, whilst
indirect contact includes all non face-to-face contact such
as telephone conversations, letters, emails, etc.
• Overall, at least half of all children had some form
of contact (direct or indirect) with their non-resident parent
at least once a week.
• 43% of children in the resident parent sample and
59% of children in the non-resident parent sample had direct
contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week.
• A further nine per cent of children in the resident
parent sample and 18% of children in the non-resident parent
sample had indirect contact at least once a week.
• A fifth (21%) of children in the resident parent sample
and a tenth (10%) of children in the non-resident parent sample
had direct contact with their non-resident parent less than
once a week.
• Less than a twentieth of children have indirect contact
less than once a week (4% for children in the resident parent
sample and 3% of children in the non-resident parent sample).
• A quarter (24%) of children in the resident parent
sample and 10% of children in the non-resident parent sample
have no direct or indirect contact with their non-resident
parent.
3 Frequency of contact with the non-resident
parent
• There is an apparent correlation between the frequency
of direct contact and indirect contact between the child and
the non-resident parent. Therefore, children who saw their
non-resident parent at least once a week were most likely
to also have indirect contact at least once a week.
• Distance between the non-resident parent's home and
that of their child is an important factor governing the frequency
with which the child has direct contact with their non-resident
parent. Indirect contact between the child and their non-resident
parent does not appear to be as dependant upon the distance
between the non-resident parent and child's homes as direct
contact.
• Non-resident parents who had been separated for three
years or more were less likely to have direct contact with
their child at least once a week than those who had separated
from the child's other parent less than three years ago.
• Children whose parents had been separated for at least
three years were also more likely to never have contact with
their non-resident parent than children whose parents had
separated more recently.
• The age of the child appears to have little influence
over the frequency of contact between the child and the non-resident
parent.
• Within the resident parent sample, contact between
the child and their non-resident parent was more likely to
be influenced by whether or not the responding parent had
had children in their current relationship, whilst within
the non-resident parent sample the frequency of contact was
more likely to be affected by whether or not the responding
parent was currently in a relationship.
• Respondents were asked where the non-resident parent
had contact with their child. The majority of children, in
both sample groups, met their non-resident parent at the non-resident
parent's home.
• Contact centres were used by less than one per cent
of children in both sample groups as a location to meet their
non-resident parents.
• Over half of all children stay overnight with their
non-resident parent. However, children whose non-resident
parent responded to the survey were more likely than children
whose resident parent responded to the survey to stay overnight
with their non-resident parent.
• There was a large discrepancy between the two samples
in the proportion of children for whom the non-resident parent
was paying maintenance. Non-resident parents were paying maintenance
for almost two-thirds (63%) of the children in the non-resident
parent sample compared with only 39% of the children in the
resident parent sample.
4 Satisfaction with frequency of contact
• Overall, the parents of children in both sample groups
were satisfied with the contact arrangements with almost half
saying that they were 'very satisfied'.
• Only one-in-twenty parents of children in both sample
groups were 'fairly dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements.
• Responding parents of children in the non-resident
parent sample were more likely to be 'very dissatisfied' with
the contact arrangements than responding parents of children
in the resident parent sample.
• On the whole children's parents were more likely to
be 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements if the non-resident
parent saw the child frequently.
• The proportion of children whose responding parent
said that they were dissatisfied with the contact arrangements
increased as the frequency of direct contact fell.
• Satisfaction with the contact arrangements among the
responding parents of children whose non-resident parent did
not have direct contact with the child was very different
in the two sample groups. Over half the responding parents
in the resident parent sample were 'very satisfied' with the
arrangements while only 6% of responding parents in the non-resident
parent sample were 'very satisfied'.
• In general, satisfaction with contact arrangements
does not appear to be influenced by the distance between the
non-resident parent's home and that of the child.
• When asked how contact arrangements could be improved,
the most popular contact improvement, in both sample groups,
was that the non-resident parent should have more direct contact
with their child.
5 Contact arrangements with the non-resident
parent
• Contact arrangements between the non-resident parent
and their child can be agreed in a number of ways. They can
be agreed both formally or informally. Informal arrangements
include the parents agreeing between themselves that the non-resident
parent will have contact with the child every Saturday or
parents have no set contact arrangements and deciding on a
weekly basis. Formal contact arrangements are those negotiated
by a mediator or lawyer or ordered by a court.
• The majority of children had the contact arrangements
with their non-resident parent informally arranged. Over half
of the children from both samples had the contact arrangements
informally agreed between their parents.
• The nearer the non-resident parent lived to the child
the more likely it was that the contact arrangements were
informally agreed between the parents. This pattern is reversed
for informal contact arrangements that were never agreed:
the nearer the non-resident parent lives to the child the
likelihood that the informal arrangements had never been agreed
decreases.
• Contact arrangements are more likely to be informally
agreed between parents if the parents had been separated for
less than three years.
• In general, the more frequently the child has some
contact with their non-resident parent the more likely it
is that the contact arrangements were informally agreed between
parents. This pattern is reversed for informal contact arrangements
that were never agreed between the parents: the less often
the child has contact with their non-resident parent the more
likely it is that the informal contact arrangements have never
been agreed.
• On the whole, responding parents who had informally
agreed the contact arrangements between themselves were mainly
satisfied.
• Satisfaction with contact arrangements that had been
ordered by a court was low.
• Responding parents of children in the non-resident
parent sample said the main improvement they would like to
see to the contact arrangements was better communication with
the other parent.
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of the module
on non-resident parental contact carried out on behalf of
the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as part of the
Office for National Statistics Omnibus Survey.
The survey aimed to:
• Assess current levels, frequency and satisfaction
with contact arrangements from the point of view of the non-resident
and the resident parent.
• Provide baseline data for future comparisons.
1.1 Sample
The sample included parents of:
• children aged 15 years or younger;
• birth children;
• children separated from one parent because of relationship
breakdown.
The sample excluded:
• widowed parents;
• parents of children at boarding school;
• parents separated from their children because of state
intervention, for example, those in care.
Non-resident parents are respondents who have
had a child from a previous relationship which has broken
down and the child lives with the other birth parent. Resident
parents are respondents who live with a child from a previous
relationship and the other birth parent does not live with
them.
1.2 Fieldwork
A module asking about non-resident parental contact was run
on the National Statistics Omnibus Survey in April, June,
July, August, September, October and November 2002. This module
was offered as a self-completion module. The Omnibus ran to
capacity in April and July which meant that the module could
not be included because of the additional time it could add
to the length of interview. Therefore a different approach
was taken for these two months: the Omnibus Survey asked a
few questions to identify the sample of interest, then follow-up
telephone interviews were conducted by the ONS Telephone Unit.
The National Statistics Omnibus Survey is a
multi-purpose survey based on a representative sample of adults
aged 16 or over, living in private households in Great Britain.
The Omnibus Survey interviewed 13,506 adults during the seven
months between April 2002 and November 2002. Questions about
non-resident parental contact were only asked of respondents
who were non-resident or resident parents, therefore the results
of this report are based on 935 adults who met the criterion.
The majority of respondents used the self-completion method
of answering the module of questions on the Omnibus Survey.
Self-completion was used to encourage honest answers and to
avoid potential embarrassment on the part of respondents.
1.3 Respondents to the module
The achieved sample comprises of 649 respondents who were
resident parents and 312 respondents who were non-resident
parents. There were 26 respondents who were both a resident
parent and a non-resident parent.
The majority (93%) of resident parents were
female while the majority of non-resident parents were male
(89%). Approximately half the sample of parents were aged
between 31 and 40 years (53% of resident parents and 47% of
non-resident parents). A larger proportion of the resident
parent sample were younger than the non-resident parent sample:
26% were aged under 30 years compared with 15% of the non-resident
parent sample. Therefore a larger proportion of the non-resident
parent sample were older than the resident parent sample:
more than a third (38%) aged 41 years or over compared with
less than a quarter (22%) of the resident parent sample.
Most parents had either one or two children
from a previous relationship. Three-fifths of respondents
had one child (59% of resident parent and 62% of non-resident
parents) and approximately a third of respondents had two
children from a previous relationship (31% of resident parents
and 29% of non-resident parents). Less than one-in-ten parents
had three children (8% of resident parents and 6% of non-resident
parents) and only one per cent of resident parents had four
children and three per cent of non-resident parents had four
or more children from a previous relationship.
In total, parents reported on contact arrangements
for 1,506 children. Nearly half the children were aged 11
to 16 years (49% of the non-resident parent sample and 42%
of the resident parent sample). A third were aged between
6 and 10 years (32% of the resident parent sample and 35%
of the non-resident parent sample). Children aged over 10
may have different contact arrangements to younger children
as they may influence the contact arrangements. There was
an even split of male and female children in both samples.
Tables 1.1 - 1.2
1.4 Analysis
Although the survey data were collected from interviews with
parents, analysis of data has been carried out at the child
level. This approach has been taken because parents may have
had more than one resident or non-resident child and contact
arrangements may have been different for each child. Therefore
parents' behaviour and attitudes are reported as characteristics
of the child.
Results have been presented separately for the
non-resident parent sample and the resident parent sample.
It is necessary to show the results from the two samples separately
because there was a possibility that the Omnibus Survey could
have interviewed a child's resident and non-resident parent.
Therefore if the results were combined for the two samples
there would be a chance that the same child would be included
twice in the data.
Logistic regression analysis has been used in
the report to provide a measure of the effect of various variables
on the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident
parent. Unlike the crosstabulations presented elsewhere in
the report, logistic regression estimates the effect of a
variable while controlling for the confounding effect of other
variables in the analysis.
Details about the Omnibus Survey are given in
Appendix A and the questionnaire is shown in Appendix B. Appendix
C details the statistical terms used in this report and their
interpretation.
2 Baseline figures for contact between child and non-resident
parent
One of the primary purposes of the survey was
to provide the Department for Constitutional Affairs with
baseline figures for contact between the child and the non-resident
parent from which levels of contact can be monitored over
time. In order to effectively monitor change over time the
associated 95% confidence intervals for these baseline percentages
are shown in Tables 2.1-2.4. Chapter 3 'Frequency of contact
with the non-resident parent' contains further analysis of
the frequency of contact between the child and non-resident
parent and the factors that may influence the frequency of
contact.
2.1 Contact between child and non-resident parent
Contact between the child and non-resident parent can be divided
into two forms: 'direct contact', that is face-to-face contact
and 'indirect contact' such as contact via the telephone,
mail, email etc. Data relating to frequency of contact in
this chapter has been priority coded so that any form of contact
at least once a week takes priority over contact less than
once a week and direct contact within each time frame takes
priority over any indirect contact during that period:
1. 'Direct contact at least once a week'
(for example, a child who speaks to their non-resident parent
every day on the
telephone but sees them only once a week)
2. 'Indirect contact at least once a week'
(for example, a child who has two or three emails a week from
their non-resident parent and sees them only in the school
holidays)
3. 'Direct contact less than once a week'
(for example, a child who speaks to their non-resident parent
once a fortnight on the telephone and sees them once a year
on holiday)
4. 'Indirect contact less than once a week'
(for example, a child irregularly receives letters from their
non-resident parent but never has direct contact with them)
Forty-three per cent of children in the resident
parent sample and 59% of children in the non-resident parent
sample had direct contact at least once a week with their
non-resident parent. A further nine per cent of children in
the resident parent sample and 18% of those in the non-resident
parent sample had indirect contact at least once a week.
A fifth (21%) of children in the resident parent
sample and a tenth (10%) of children in the non-resident parent
sample have direct contact less than once a week with their
non-resident parent and less than a twentieth of children
in both samples (4% and 3% respectively) have only indirect
contact less than once a week.
A quarter (23%) of children in the resident
parent sample and a tenth (10%) of children in the non-resident
parent sample have no direct nor indirect contact with their
non-resident parent.
Overall, at least half of all children had some form of contact
(direct or indirect contact) with their non-resident parent
at least once a week: half (52%) of children in the resident
parent sample and three-quarters (77%) of children in the
non-resident parent sample. However, only three-tenths (30%)
of children in the resident parent sample and just over a
half (54%) of children in the non-resident parent sample had
both direct and indirect contact at least once a week with
their non-resident parent.
Within both sample groups, fewer than three in ten children
stayed over night with their non-resident parent at least
once a week: 20% of children in the resident parent sample
and 27% of children in the non-resident parent sample. Tables
2.1 - 2.4
3. Frequency of contact with the non-resident parent
Contact between the non-resident parent and
their child can take a number of different forms and can be
divided into two categories: direct and indirect contact.
For the purposes of this report direct contact is defined
as face-to-face contact between the child and the non-resident
parent, whilst indirect contact includes all non face-to-face
contact such as telephone conversations, letters, emails,
etc .
Figure 3.1 Frequency of direct contact
3.1 Direct contact
Around one in ten children had daily direct contact with their
non-resident parent (8% of children whose resident parent
responded and 11% of children whose non-resident parent was
the respondent). A third (34%) of children whose resident
parent was interviewed and just under a half (48%) of children
whose non-resident parent responded saw their non-resident
parent at least once a week but not every day. Slightly fewer
than one in five (18% of both samples) children saw their
non-resident parent at least once a month. A further twentieth
of children saw their non-resident parent only in the school
holidays or once every three months (4% of children whose
resident parent responded and 5% of children whose non-resident
parent responded to the survey). A similar proportion, 6%
of children whose resident parent was the respondent and 4%
of children whose non-resident parent was the respondent,
saw their non-resident parent once or twice a year and 3%
and 1% respectively saw their non-resident parent less often
than once a year. Just over a quarter (27%) of children whose
resident parent responded to the survey compared with 14%
of children whose non-resident parent responded never see
their non-resident parent. There is an apparent inconsistency
between the two samples about the frequency with which the
child has direct contact with their non-resident parent. Table
3.1 and Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2 Frequency of indirect contact
3.2 Indirect contact
The inconsistency between the two survey samples is more obvious
when parents were asked about the frequency of indirect contact
between the non-resident parent and their child. In some circumstances
and situations the frequency of indirect contact between the
non-resident parent and their child may be more difficult
for the resident to assess than direct contact (for example
a resident parent may not be aware of all telephone conversations
or emails between the non-resident parent and their child)
and this may explain some of the differences between the results
from the two sample.
Amongst the sample of children whose non-resident
parent responded to the survey half (53%) had indirect contact
with their non-resident parent at least once a week but not
every day and a further 18% had daily indirect contact. Six
per cent had indirect contact with their non-resident parent
once a month and one tenth (10%) had indirect contact less
often than once a month. One eighth (12%) of these children
had no indirect contact with their non-resident parent.
Among the children whose resident parent responded
to the survey slightly more than a quarter (28%) had indirect
contact at least once a week but not every day with their
non-resident parent and only 12% had daily indirect contact.
An eighth (13%) had indirect contact with their non-resident
parent at least once a month and a further 18% of children
had indirect contact less frequently than once a month. Three
in ten (29%) children in this survey sample reportedly never
had indirect contact with their non-resident parent. Table
3.2 and Figure 3.2
3.3 Relationship between direct and indirect
contact with non-resident parent
Table 3.3 shows that there is an apparent correlation between
the frequency of direct and indirect contact between the child
and their non-resident parent within both samples. Therefore
children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a
week but not every day were most likely to also have indirect
contact with them at least once a week but not daily. Among
children in the resident parent sample, two thirds (67%) of
children who had indirect contact with their non-resident
parent at least once a week but not every day also had direct
contact with them at least once a week but not daily. Similarly,
half (52%) of children in the resident parent sample who had
indirect contact with their non-resident parent at least once
a month also had direct contact at least once a month. Among
children who had no indirect contact with their non-resident
parent four-fifths, in both sample groups, also had no direct
contact with their non-resident parent (80% of children in
the resident parent sample and 83% of children in the non-resident
parent sample who never had indirect contact with their non-resident
parent). Table 3.3
3.4 Distance between child's home and non-resident
parent's home
Unsurprisingly, the distance between the non-resident parent's
home and that of their child appears to be an important factor
governing the frequency with which the child sees their non-resident
parent. Consequently, children who lived within ten miles
of their non-resident parent were those most likely to see
their non-resident parent daily. Over an eighth of children
who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent saw
them every day (14% of children whose resident parent responded
to the survey and 16% of children whose non-resident parent
was the respondent).
Within the non-resident parent sample the relationship
between frequency of direct contact and distance between the
child and the non-resident parent is much clearer than within
the resident parent sample. The results from this sample suggest
that frequency of contact decreases as the distance between
non-resident parent and child increases. Therefore, children
who lived less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent
were those most likely to see their non-resident parent on
a daily basis (16% compared with 6% of children who lived
10 miles but less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent
and 1% of children who lived 50 or more miles from their non-resident
parent). Children who lived less than 50 miles from their
non-resident parent were most likely to see them at least
once a week but not every day: more than six in ten (63%)
children who lived under 10 miles from their non-resident
parent's home and half (49%) of those who lived 10 miles but
less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent's home saw
them at least once a week but not every day. Children who
lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent's home
were most likely to see their non-resident parent at least
once a month: the proportion of children who lived 50 miles
or more from their non-resident parent's home and who saw
their non-resident parent at least once a month was almost
twice that of children who lived 10 miles but less than 50
miles from their non-resident parent and four times that of
children who lived under 10 miles from their non-resident
parent (43%, 22% and 10% respectively).
Among both sample groups children who lived
50 miles or more from their non-resident parent's home were
those most likely to never see their non-resident parent.
Within the resident parent sample this proportion is more
than twice that of the same proportion among the non-resident
sample (45% compared with 20%). Table 3.4
Perhaps unsurprisingly, indirect contact between the child
and their non-resident parent does not appear to be as dependant
upon the distance between the non-resident parent and child's
homes as direct contact. In fact among the non-resident parent
sample there would appear to be very little difference in
frequency of indirect contact by distance between the child
and non-resident parent other than that children who live
within 10 miles of their non-resident parent are twice as
likely as those who live 10 miles but less than 50 miles,
or 50 miles and over from their non-resident parent to have
daily indirect contact with their non-resident parent (24%,
13% and 12% respectively). However, among children in the
resident parent sample a pattern was evident: children living
less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent's home were
more likely to have daily indirect contact than children living
further from their non-resident parent; children who lived
less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent were twice
as likely to have weekly indirect contact with their non-resident
parent than children who lived 50 miles or more from their
non-resident parent; and children who lived 50 miles or more
from their non-resident parent were those most likely to have
no indirect contact with their non-resident parent. Table
3.5 and Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3 Frequency of indirect contact by
distance child lives from non-resident parent among children
in the resident parent sample
When both indirect and direct contact is taken
into account, as Table 3.6 shows, children who lived less
than 10 miles from their non-resident parent were more likely
than children who lived further from their non-resident parent
to have direct contact with their non-resident parent at least
once a week (62% of children in the resident parent sample
and 78% of children in the non-resident parent sample who
lived less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent).
However, among children who lived 10 miles but less than 50
miles from their non-resident parent the proportion who saw
their non-resident parent at least once a week was still large:
41% of children in the resident parent sample and 56% of children
in the non-resident parent sample. Following this pattern,
(among children in the non-resident parent sample only ) children
who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent
were less likely to have weekly direct contact with their
non-resident parent than children who lived nearer to their
non-resident parent, but almost six in ten (57%) had indirect
contact at least once a week. Table 3.6
3.5 Factors influencing frequency of contact
Length of time since parents separated
Responding parents were asked how long they had been separated
from their child's other parent and answered using the following
frame:
1. Less than one year
2. One year to less than two years
3. Two years to less than three years
4. Three years and over
5. Never in a relationship with the other parent
It would appear that non-resident parents who
had been separated for three years or more were less likely
to have direct contact with their child at least once a week
than those who had separated from the other parent less than
three years ago. For example, among children in the resident
parent sample only a third (32%) of those whose parents separated
three years ago or more saw their non-resident parent at least
once a week compared with over half of children whose parents
separated less than three years ago (70% of children whose
parents separated less than a year ago, 64% of children whose
parents separated one year but less than two years ago, and
56% of children whose parents separated two years but less
than three years ago). Whilst this pattern was similar among
children in the non-resident parent sample the proportions
of children who had direct contact with their non-resident
parent at least once a week was much larger than the same
proportion in the resident parent sample for each of the separation
period groups. Therefore among children in the non-resident
parent sample just over a half (53%) of those whose parents
had been separated for at least three years had direct contact
with their non-resident parent at least once a week compared
with around four-fifths of children whose parents had separated
more recently (79% of children whose parents separated less
than a year ago, 84% of children whose parents separated one
year but less than two years ago, and 79% of children whose
parents separated two years but less than three years ago).
Children whose parents had been separated for
at least three years were also more likely never to have contact
with their non-resident parent than children whose parents
had separated more recently. Again among children in the resident
parent sample, over a quarter (28%) of children whose parents
separated at least three years ago never have contact with
their non-resident parent compared with around one in ten
children whose parents separated less than three years ago
(11% of children whose parents separated less than a year
ago, 12% of children whose parents separated one year but
less than two years ago, and 10% of children whose parents
separated two years but less than three years ago). Furthermore,
within the resident parent sample six in ten (59%) children
whose parents described themselves as never having been in
a relationship with the other parent never have contact with
their non-resident parent. Table 3.7
Age of child
The age of the child appears to have little influence over
the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident
parent. Children in each age group were most likely to have
direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once
a week. However, the proportion of children aged 11-16 years
who had direct contact with their non-resident parent at least
once a week was smaller than for younger children: for example,
among children in the non-resident parent sample only half
(51%) of children aged 11-16 years had direct contact with
their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with
two-thirds (67%) of children aged 0-5 years and 6-10 years.
Within both samples the proportion of children in each age
group who had no contact with their non-resident parent was
very similar. Among children in the resident parent sample
around a quarter of children in each age group had neither
indirect nor direct contact with their non-resident parent
(24% aged 0-5 years, 21% aged 6-10 years, and 25% aged 11-16
years). The proportion of children in the non-resident parent
sample who had no contact with their non-resident parent was
smaller, but again similar in each age group: around one tenth
of children in each age group had neither direct nor indirect
contact with their non-resident parent (8% aged 0-5 years,
10% aged 6-10 years, and 11% aged 11-16 years). Table 3.8
3.6 Further analysis
Logistic regression has been used in this report to produce
relative risk ratios to predict the odds of a child being
in a specific group as compared to a baseline group. This
enables the effect of various factors on the frequency of
contact between the child and their non-resident parent to
be explored. The following variables were entered in the model:
age of the child, distance between the homes of the child
and their non-resident parent, and the length of time the
child's parents had been separated. Analysis by distance between
the homes of the child and their non-resident parent does
not include children or parents who lived abroad as these
groups were too small for any meaningful analysis. Similarly,
analysis by length of separation does not include parents
who had never been in a relationship because the sample group
was too small.
The results from the model show that age of
the child does not appear to have an impact upon the frequency
of contact between the child and their non-resident parent.
Distance between the child and their non-resident
parent
Results from the model show that distance between the homes
of the child and their non-resident parent have a significant
impact upon the frequency of contact between the child and
their non-resident parent. Children who lived less than ten
miles from their non-resident parent were more likely to have
direct contact at least once a week than children who lived
further away. Similarly, children who lived fifty miles or
more from their non-resident parent were those most likely
to have no contact with their non-resident parent.
Children who lived ten miles or more from their
non-resident parent were more likely to have indirect contact
than direct contact at least once a week than children who
lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent. Within
the resident parent sample, children who lived between 10
and 49 miles of their non-resident parent were four times
more likely to have indirect than direct contact at least
once a week than children who lived within ten miles of their
non-resident parent. Similar findings were found among children
in the non-resident parent sample: children who lived between
10 and 49 miles of their non-resident parent were four times
more likely to have indirect than direct contact at least
once a week than children who lived within ten miles of their
non-resident parent. The odds of a child having indirect contact
rather than direct contact at least once a week with their
non-resident parent increased among children who lived 50
miles or more from their non-resident parent. Children, within
the resident parent sample, who lived at least 50 miles from
their non-resident parent were 30 times more likely than those
who lived less than ten miles from their resident parent to
have indirect contact than direct contact at least once a
week. Within the non-resident parent sample the same odds
were higher: children who lived at least 50 miles from their
non-resident parent were 58 times more likely than those who
lived less than ten miles from their non-resident parent to
have indirect contact than direct contact at least once a
week.
Within the non-resident parent sample only,
the model also showed that there was a significant difference
between the likelihood of children who lived 50 miles or more
from their non-resident parent and those who lived between
10 and 49 miles from their non-resident parent having indirect
contact rather than direct contact at least once a week. Children
who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent
were 14 times more likely to have indirect contact than direct
contact at least once a week than children who lived between
10 and 49 miles from their non-resident parent.
Contact less frequently than once a week would
also appear to be affected by the distance between the child
and their non-resident parent. Within the resident parent
sample the odds of a child having contact less than once a
week than having direct contact at least once a week rose
as the distance between the child and their non-resident parent
increased. Children who lived between 10 and 49 miles from
their non-resident parent were three times as likely to have
direct contact less often than once a week than direct contact
once a week compared with children who lived within 10 miles
of their non-resident parents. The odds of having direct contact
less often than once a week than having direct contact at
least once week was 23 times more likely for children who
lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent than
those who lived less than ten miles. This pattern was continued
for children in the resident sample living at least 50 miles
from their non-resident parent when compared with those living
between 10 and 50 miles from their non-resident parent: children
who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent
were 9 times more likely to have direct contact less than
once a week and 63 times more likely to have indirect contact
less than weekly than direct contact at least once a week
compared with children who lived between 10 and 49 miles from
their non-resident parent. Within the resident parent sample,
children who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident
parent were 166 times more likely to have indirect contact
less frequently than once a week than direct contact at least
once a week compared with children who lived within 10 miles
of their non-resident parent. The difference between children
who lived between 10 and 49 miles of their non-resident parent
and those who lived nearer in terms of likelihood of having
indirect contact less often than once a week rather than direct
contact at least once a week was not significant.
The bases of the groups of children who had
direct contact less than once a week, and those who had indirect
contact less than once a week were too small within the non-resident
parent sample to allow the model to produce meaningful relative
risk ratios and therefore for this sample group only the two
groups have been combined. Within the non-resident parent
sample the difference between the likelihood that children
had contact with their non-resident parent less than once
a week rather than direct contact at least once a week was
significant only for children who lived 50 miles or more from
their non-resident parent. Compared with children who lived
within 10 miles of their non-resident parent, children who
lived 50 miles or more were 10 times more likely to have some
form of contact less often than once a week than direct contact
at least once a week.
Within both samples children who lived fifty
miles or more from their non-resident parent were more likely
than children who lived nearer to have no contact with their
non-resident parent. Among children in the resident parent
sample, the likelihood of children who lived at least 50 miles
from their non-resident parent to have no contact with their
non-resident parent than to have direct contact at least once
a week was greater when compared with children who lived within
ten miles of their non-resident parent (38 times more likely)
than when compared with children who lived between 10 and
50 miles from their non-resident parent (24 times more likely).
Within the non-resident parent sample the difference was also
significant when comparing children who lived less than 50
miles from their non-resident parent: children who lived at
least 50 miles from their non-resident parent were 24 times
more likely to have no contact than direct contact at least
once a week with their non-resident parent when compared with
children who lived within 10 miles of their non-resident parent.
When compared to children who lived between 10 and 49 miles
from the non-resident parent, children who lived 50 miles
and over from the non-resident parent were eight times more
likely to have no contact with their non-resident parent than
direct contact at least once a week.
Length of time since parent's separation
Whilst the model found length of time since parent's separation
to have a significant effect upon frequency of contact between
children the findings were slightly different within the two
sample groups. Within the resident parent sample children
whose parents had been separated for three years or more were
four times as likely to have direct and indirect contact less
frequently than once a week than have weekly direct contact
when compared with children whose parents had been separated
for less than three years. Similarly, these children were
five times more likely than children whose parents had separated
in the last three years, to have no contact with their non-resident
parent than to have direct contact at least once a week.
Within the non-resident parent sample, significant
differences were only found for children who had contact with
the non-resident parent less often than once a week: children
whose parents had been separated for three years or more were
four times as likely to have contact less frequently than
once a week than have weekly direct contact when compared
with children whose parents had been separated for less than
three years. Children whose parents had been separated for
at least three years were eight times more likely to have
no contact with their non-resident parent than direct contact
at least once a week when compared with children whose parents
had been separated for less than three years. Tables 3.9-3.12
3.7 Characteristics of the responding parent
The frequency with which the child had contact with their
non-resident parent does not appear to be related to the age
of the responding parent. Additionally, sex of the responding
parent would not appear to influence frequency of contact
in either of the sample groups. However, it should be remembered
that the composition of the two sample groups were heavily
sex specific: the non-resident parent sample largely comprised
of children whose non-resident parent (the responding parent)
was their father, whilst the resident parent sample largely
comprised of children whose resident parent (the responding
parent) was their mother.
Crosstabulation by region of residence of the
responding parent also showed no statistically significant
differences in the frequency of contact. Similarly, ethnic
group of the responding parent (which may or may not be the
same as either the child or the other parent) would not on
the whole appear to influence the frequency with which the
child had contact with their non-resident parent. The only
difference in frequency of contact by ethnic group was found
among children in the resident parent sample: children whose
resident parent was white were more likely than those whose
resident parent was non-white to have weekly direct contact
with their non-resident parent (44% compared with 32%).
In general the socio-economic group of the responding
parent does not appear to influence the frequency of contact
between the child and their non-resident parent. The only
statistically significant difference was found among the resident
parent sample where children whose resident parent was in
the lower occupations socio-economic group were more likely
than children whose resident parents were in the higher or
intermediate occupations groups to never have contact with
their non-resident parent (30% compared with 16% and12% respectively).
Tables 3.13-3.17
Whether responding parent had a new partner
Respondents were asked whether or not they were currently
in a relationship and if so whether they have had a child
within this current relationship. Within both sample groups
whether or not the responding parent currently had a new partner
appeared to be a factor that influenced the frequency of contact
between the child and the non-resident parent. However, the
findings were different within the sample groups: contact
between the child and non-resident parent were more likely
to be influenced by whether or not the responding parent had
had children in their current relationship within the resident
parent sample whilst within the non-resident parent sample
the frequency of contact was more likely to be affected by
whether or not the responding parent was currently in a relationship.
Among the resident parent sample, children whose
resident parent was currently in a relationship but had not
had children in that relationship were as likely as those
whose resident parent was not currently in a relationship
to have direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident
parent (47% and 48% respectively). Fewer than one in five
(16%) children whose resident parent was currently in a relationship
and had had a child within that relationship had direct contact
at least once a week with their non-resident parent, whilst
two-fifths (40%) had direct contact less than once a week
with their non-resident parent (compared with 22% of children
whose resident parent was currently in a relationship and
had not had a child in that relationship and 14% of children
whose resident parent was not currently in a relationship).
Within the non-resident sample, children whose
non-resident parent was not currently in a relationship were
more likely to have direct contact with their non-resident
parent at least once a week than children whose non-resident
parent was currently in a relationship. Three-quarters (76%)
of children whose non-resident parent was not currently in
a relationship saw their non-resident parent at least once
a week compared with around a half of children whose non-resident
parent was currently in a relationship (53% of children whose
non-resident parent was currently in a relationship and had
not had a child within that relationship and 48% of children
whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship
and they had had a child in that relationship). Furthermore,
children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship
were three times more likely than children whose non-resident
parent was not currently in a relationship to never have contact
with their non-resident parent (12% of children whose non-resident
parent was currently in a relationship but had not had a child
in that relationship, 14% of children whose non-resident parent
was in a relationship and had had a child in that relationship
compared with 4% of children whose non-resident parent was
not currently in a relationship). Table 3.18
3.8 Characteristics of the responding parent
in situations where the non resident parent has no direct
contact with their child
The parents of children who did not have direct contact with
their non-resident parent were most likely to have been separated
for at least three years: 73% and 83% respectively of children
in the resident parent sample and non-resident parent sample
who did not have direct contact with their non-resident.
Unsurprisingly, given that the child's father
is most likely to be the non-resident parent, within both
samples the parent that the child was no longer in direct
contact with was their father.
It would seem that among the resident parent
sample the presence of a new partner for their resident parent
did not affect the likelihood of the non-resident parent having
no contact with the child. Therefore among children in the
resident parent sample who no longer had direct contact with
their non-resident parent, they were almost as likely to be
living with a resident parent who currently had a partner
as living with one who did not (for example, 55% of these
children lived with a resident parent who did not currently
have a partner). Whereas the presence of a new partner for
the non-resident parent appears to increase the likelihood
that the child will no longer have contact with the non-resident
parent: among children in the non-resident parent sample who
did not have direct contact with their non-resident parent
only 12% of these children had a non-resident parent who did
not currently have a partner. Table 3.19
3.9 Location of direct contact
Respondents were asked where the non-resident parent had contact
with their child and on the whole the findings from both sample
groups were very similar. The majority of children, in both
sample groups, met their non-resident parent at the non-resident
parent's home (70% of children whose resident parent was the
respondent and 86% of children whose non-resident parent responded).
Furthermore, the non-resident parent's home remained the most
popular site of contact regardless of the frequency with which
the child saw their non-resident parent.
Over a quarter of children in each sample group
saw their non-resident parent at their resident parent's home
(28% of children in the resident parent sample and 26% of
those in the non-resident parent sample). Perhaps unsurprisingly,
this location for direct contact was most popular among children
who saw their non-resident parent every day: over half of
children who saw their non-resident parent every day met them
in their resident parent's home (62% of children in the resident
parent sample and 56% of those in the non-resident parent
sample). The proportion of children, in both sample groups,
who saw their non-resident parent in their resident parent's
home more than halved between those who saw their non-resident
parent every day and those who had direct contact at least
once a week but not every day. For example, among children
in the resident parent sample the proportion who saw their
non-resident parent in their resident parent's home fell from
62% of those who had daily direct contact with their non-resident
parent to only a quarter (26%) of those who saw their non-resident
parent at least once a week but not every day.
Figure 3.4 Location of contact visits
A 'place of leisure' was the second most popular location
for direct contact to take place between the non-resident
parent and their child for both sample groups. Three in ten
(29%) children whose resident parent responded and four in
ten (39%) children whose non-resident parent responded to
the survey met their non-resident parent at a place of leisure.
One fifth of children met their non-resident parent at a relative's
or friend's home (22% of children in the resident parent sample
and 21% of children in the non-resident parent sample). Children
whose non-resident parent responded to the survey were twice
as likely as those whose resident parent responded to meet
their non-resident parent at school (8% compared with 4%).
Contact centres were used by less than one per
cent of children in both sample groups as a location to meet
their non-resident parents. Table 3.20 and Figure 3.4
3.10 Overnight stays with the non-resident parent
Over half of all children stay overnight with their non-resident
parent. However, there was a large difference between the
proportion of children in both sample groups who stay overnight
with their non-resident parent. The Survey found that children
whose non-resident parent responded to the survey were more
likely than children whose resident parent responded to the
survey to stay overnight with their non-resident parent: four-fifths
(81%) of children in the non-resident parent sample compared
with three-fifths (60%) of children in the resident parent
sample.
Slightly fewer than one third of children in both sample groups
stay overnight with their non-resident parent at least once
a week (28% of children in the resident parent sample and
32% of children in the non-resident parent sample).
A third (33%) of children in the non-resident parent sample
stay overnight with their non-resident parent at least once
a week compared with only 20% of children in the resident
parent sample. Similarly, the proportions of children who
stay overnight in the school holidays/every three months was
much larger in the non-resident parent sample than in the
resident parent sample (9% compared with 2%).
Around a twentieth of children in both sample
groups stay overnight with their non-resident parent once
or twice a year (7% of children in the resident parent sample
and 5% of children in the non-resident parent sample). However,
children in the resident parent sample were more likely to
stay overnight with their non-resident parent less often than
once a year than children in the non-resident parent sample
(4% compared with 1%). Table 3.21 and Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5 Frequency of overnight stay
Among children in the resident parent sample those who had
direct contact with their non-resident parent less than once
a month were half as likely as those who saw their non-resident
parent more frequently to stay overnight with them. For example,
71% of children in the resident parent sample who had direct
contact with their non-resident parent every day stay overnight
with them compared with only a third (32%) of those who have
direct contact less often than once a month.
Within the non-resident parent sample the relationship
between frequency of direct contact and likelihood that the
child stays overnight with the non-resident parent is not
as clear. Whilst the smallest proportion of children that
stay overnight with their non-resident parent were those who
have direct contact with their non-resident parent less often
than once a month (62%) the differences between this proportion
and those for children who had direct contact more frequently
were not statistically significant . However, children in
the non-resident parent sample who have direct contact with
their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every
day were those most likely to stay overnight with them . Almost
nine in ten (87%) children who saw their non-resident parent
at least once a week but not every day also stay overnight
with them compared with, for example, 71% of children who
have direct contact with their non-resident parent every day.
In general the likelihood of a child staying
overnight with their non-resident parent does not appear to
be influenced by the distance between the non-resident parent's
home and that of their child. The exception to this being
that children in the resident parent sample who lived less
than 10 miles from their non-resident parent were more likely
than those who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident
parent to stay overnight with them (65% compared with 50%).
This difference was not evident within the non-resident parent
sample.
The length of time that the child's parents
had been separated had no effect on the likelihood that they
stay overnight with their non-resident parent.
Within the non-resident parent sample there
would appear to be a relationship between the age of the child
and whether they stay overnight with their non-resident parent.
Just under two-thirds of children aged six and over, in the
resident parent sample, stay overnight with their non-resident
parent (63% aged 6-10 and 64% aged 11-16) compared with only
a half (51%) aged 0-5. Whilst a similar pattern appears within
the non-resident parent sample the difference between the
proportions of children aged 0-5 and six and over are not
as large and not statistically significant. Table 3.22
3.11 Maintenance payment
There was a large discrepancy between the two samples in the
proportion of children for whom the non-resident parent was
paying maintenance. Non-resident parents were paying maintenance
for almost two-thirds (63%) of the children in the non-resident
parent sample compared with only 39% of the children in the
resident parent sample. This discrepancy between the samples
may be caused by the parent's perception of 'maintenance payment'.
It is possible that respondents who were the resident parent
may have perceived 'maintenance payment' to mean a formal
regular payment made by the non-resident parent whilst non-resident
parent respondents may have been more likely to define 'maintenance
payment' more broadly to include irregular contributions,
gifts etc. made either to the resident parent or directly
to the child.
Children who had direct contact at least once
a week with their non-resident parent were more likely to
receive maintenance payments from them than children who had
direct contact less often. For example, among children in
the resident parent sample, 53% of those who had direct contact
at least once a week with their non-resident parent had maintenance
paid for them compared with only 41% who had direct contact
less than once a week. Within both samples the differences
between the proportions of children who had indirect contact
at least once a week and whose non-resident parent was paying
maintenance for them and the corresponding proportions of
children who had direct contact with their non-resident parent
either weekly or less often were not statistically significant.
Children who had no contact with their non-resident
parent were those least likely to be receiving maintenance
payments. Only one tenth (9%) of children in the resident
parent sample and a quarter (25%) of those in the non-resident
parent sample who had no contact with their non-resident parent
received maintenance payments from their non-resident parent.
At present any resident parent who is claiming state benefit
(other than child benefit which is paid to all parents irrespective
of income) is required to use the Child Support Agency to
acquire maintenance payments from the child's non-resident
parent. State benefit was being claimed by four in five (80%)
parents of children in the resident parent sample. Table 3.23
Figure 3.6 How maintenance arrangements were agreed
Despite the difference in the proportions in both samples
reporting that the non-resident parent pays maintenance for
the child there was agreement between the two samples in how
the arrangements for maintenance were agreed. Over half (56%
of both samples) of all maintenance agreements were made informally
between the child's parents. Around three in ten maintenance
agreements were made through the Child Support Agency (28%
of children in the resident parent sample and 30% of children
in the non-resident parent sample for whom maintenance was
paid). Slightly more than an eighth of each sample had their
maintenance agreements made through a lawyer or a court (14%
of children in the resident parent sample and 13% of children
in the non-resident parent sample for whom maintenance was
paid). One per cent of children in each sample had had the
maintenance payments made by their non-resident parent agreed
through the Family Mediation Service.
Table 3.24 and Figure 3.6
4. Satisfaction with frequency of contact
Respondents to the survey were asked how satisfied
they were with the current contact arrangements between the
non-resident parent and their child. They were asked to answer
using the following frame:
1. Very satisfied
2. Fairly satisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Fairly dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
The categories 'fairly dissatisfied' and 'very
dissatisfied' have been combined because of the small bases
associated with them.
Although the survey data were collected from
interviews with parents, analysis of data is carried out at
the child level. This approach has been taken because parents
may have had more than one resident or non-resident child
and different contact arrangements for each. By carrying out
analysis at a child level, contact arrangements for all children
can be included. Therefore parents' behaviour and attitudes
have been analysed separately for each child.
Figure 4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
Over all, the parents of children in both sample groups were
satisfied with the contact arrangements: almost a half of
both groups saying that they were 'very satisfied' with the
arrangements (47% of parent responses in the resident parent
sample and 45% of those in the non-resident parent sample).
Similarly, the proportion of children whose responding parent
said that they were 'fairly satisfied' with the contact arrangements
were very similar in both sample groups (25% of children in
the resident parent sample and 24% of children in the non-resident
parent sample).
Only one in twenty parents of children in both
sample groups were 'fairly dissatisfied' with the contact
arrangements (6% of parent responses in the resident parent
sample and 5% of parent responses in the non-resident parent
sample). However, responding parents of children in the non-resident
parent sample were more likely to be 'very dissatisfied' with
the contact arrangements than responding parents of children
in the resident parent sample (17% compared with 12%). Table
4.1 and Figure 4.1
4.2 Relationship between satisfaction with contact
arrangements and
frequency of contact
There would appear to be a relationship between the frequency
of direct contact between the non-resident parent and their
child and the responding parent's satisfaction with the contact
arrangements. On the whole children's parents were more likely
to be 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements if the
non-resident parent saw the child frequently. Therefore the
proportion of children, in both sample groups, whose responding
parent said that they were 'very satisfied' with the contact
arrangements fell with frequency of contact. For example,
among children in the resident parent sample, the proportion
whose responding parent said that they were 'very satisfied'
with the arrangements fell from three-quarters (75%) of those
who saw their non-resident parent every day to only a quarter
(24%) who saw their non-resident parent less often than once
a month. However, the percentage rose to 58% for children
who never saw their non-resident parent.
Within the resident parent sample, the responding
parent of a third of children who saw their non-resident parent
less frequently than every day said that they were 'fairly
satisfied' with the contact arrangements: 33% of children
who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week but
not every day, 35% of those who saw their non-resident parent
at least once a month, and 32% who saw their non-resident
parent less often than once a month. This finding was also
reflected in the non-resident parent sample.
Unsurprisingly, this pattern is reversed for
the proportion of children whose responding parent said they
were 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements. Consequently,
the proportion of children whose responding parent said that
they were 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements increased
as the frequency of direct contact fell. Within the non-resident
parent sample, for example, the proportion of children whose
responding parent said that they were 'dissatisfied' with
the contact arrangements rose from 6% of those who saw their
non-resident parent every day to 36% of those who saw their
non-resident parent less frequently than once a month. The
same pattern was found among children in the resident parent
sample.
Satisfaction with the contact arrangements among the responding
parents of children whose non-resident parent did not have
direct contact with the child was very different in the two
sample groups. Among children in the resident parent sample
group who never saw their non-resident parent over half (58%)
of their responding parents (the resident parent) said that
they were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements.
Among children in the non-resident parent sample, where the
non-resident parent was the respondent, only 6% of the responding
parents of those children who never saw their non-resident
parent were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements.
Conversely, the responding parents of children in the non-resident
parent sample who never saw their non-resident parent were
almost three times as likely to say that they were 'dissatisfied'
than the responding parents of the same group of children
within the resident parent sample (60% compared with 22%).
Furthermore the responding parents of children in the non-resident
parent sample who never saw their non-resident parent were
at least three times as likely to be 'dissatisfied' with the
contact arrangements as the responding parents of children
who saw their non-resident parent at least once a month or
more frequently. These parents were also just under twice
as likely to be 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements
as the responding parents of children who saw their non-resident
parent less frequently than once a month Table 4.2 and Figure
4.2
Figure 4.2 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
by frequency of direct contact
4.3 Relationship between satisfaction with contact arrangements
and distance non-resident parent lives from child
In general, satisfaction with contact arrangements does not
appear to be influenced by the distance between the non-resident
parent's home and that of the child, the only difference was
found within the non-resident parent sample. Responding parents
of children in the non-resident parent sample who lived less
than ten miles from their non-resident parent were more likely
to say that they were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements
than the responding parents of children who lived a greater
distance from their non-resident parent. Of children who lived
less than ten miles from their non-resident parent 53% of
their responding parents were 'very satisfied' with the contact
arrangements compared with just over a third of children who
lived further from their non-resident parent (36% of children
who lived ten miles but less than 50 miles and 37% of children
who lived 50 miles or over from their non-resident parent).
Table 4.3
4.4 Improvements to current contact arrangements
Responding parents who said that they were neither 'very satisfied'
nor 'fairly satisfied' with the contact arrangements were
asked how the contact arrangements with their child (and the
non-resident parent) could be improved. Respondents' answers
were recorded verbatim and a coding frame developed once all
the data had been collected. Included in this frame were the
following improvements associated with frequency of contact
between the non-resident parent and their child:
• The non-resident parent should see their child
• The non-resident parent should see their child more
often
• The non-resident parent should contact their child
more often
• The non-resident parent should have their child to
stay overnight more often
(Further analyses of all the answers given at this question
are included in Chapter 5 of this report.)
The most popular contact improvement, in both
sample groups, was that the non-resident parent should have
more direct contact with their child. Parents of children
in the resident parent group were twice as likely as parents
of children in the non-resident parent sample to mention that
increased direct contact would improve the current contact
arrangements (34% compared with 17%). A tenth of the responding
parents of children in both samples said that if the non-resident
parent was to see their child this would be an improvement
to the current contact arrangements (11% of both samples).
Responding parents of children in the resident parent sample
were almost three times as likely as the responding parents
of children in the non-resident parent sample to say that
their contact arrangements would be improved if the non-resident
parent had more frequent indirect contact with their child
(11% and 4% respectively). Four per cent of responding parents
of children in the resident parent sample and nine per cent
of those in the non-resident parent sample thought that the
arrangements would be improved if the non-resident parent
had their child to stay over night more often.
Among children in the resident parent sample,
responding parents of those who never saw their non-resident
parent were least likely to think that the contact arrangements
could be improved by the non-resident parent seeing their
child more often (for example, 17% compared with 52% of children
who saw their non-resident parent at least once a month).
Children who saw their non-resident parent less frequently
than once a month were those most likely to have a responding
parent who thought that the contact arrangements could be
improved by the non-resident parent having more indirect contact
with their child (23% compared with less than one in ten children
who either saw their non-resident parent more frequently or
never saw them at all). Unfortunately the non-resident parent
sample is too small to cross-tabulate improvements to contact
arrangements by frequency of contact.
Table 4.4 and Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3 Proportion of children whose responding
parent said that they
would like the non-resident parent to have more contact with
the child
5. Contact arrangements with the non-resident parent
Contact arrangements between the non-resident
parent and their child can be agreed in a number of ways.
They can be agreed both formally or informally. In this report,
contact arrangements have been divided into the following
categories:
1. Informally-agreed contact arrangement - e.g.
parents agreed between themselves that the non-resident parent
will have contact with the child every Saturday.
2. Informal contact arrangement, not agreed - e.g. parents
have no set contact arrangements and decide on a weekly basis
etc. when the non-resident parent will have contact.
3. Formal contact arrangement negotiated by a mediator or
lawyer.
4. Formal contact arrangement ordered by a court
These contact arrangements include both direct
contact (face-to-face contact) and indirect contact (all non
face-to-face contact such as telephone conversations and letters).
The contact arrangements are inclusive of situations where
the child has no contact with their non-resident parent.
Although the survey data were collected from
interviews with parents, analysis of data is carried out at
the child level. This approach has been taken because parents
may have had more than one resident or non-resident child
and contact arrangements may have been different for each
child. Therefore parents' behaviour and attitudes are reported
as characteristics of the child.
5.1 Type of contact arrangement with the non-resident
parent
The majority of children had the contact arrangements with
their non-resident parent arranged informally (85% of children
whose resident parent responded and 81% of children whose
non-resident parent responded). Furthermore, over half of
the children (60%) from the resident parent sample and half
of the children (50%) from the non-resident parent sample
had these contact arrangements informally agreed between their
parents. Approximately a third of children (35%) whose resident
parent responded and one fifth (21%) of children whose non-resident
parent responded had never agreed the informal arrangements.
A small number of the sample had the contact
arrangements formally agreed. One-in-twenty children had the
contact arrangements with their non-resident parent negotiated
by mediators or lawyers (6% of children whose resident parent
was the respondent and 5% of children whose non-resident parent
was interviewed). Over one-in-ten children (13%) whose non-resident
parent was the respondent and just under one-in-ten children
(9%) whose resident parent responded had the contact arrangements
ordered by court.
There is an inconsistency between the two samples
about whether informal contact arrangements were agreed. When
compared to the non-resident sample, it appears that the resident
parent sample were more likely to say that the informal contact
arrangements were not agreed and less likely to say that the
informal contact arrangements were agreed between their parents.
However when both types of informal arrangements are combined,
the same proportion of both samples (four-fifths) said that
the contact arrangements were informal. Table 5.1 and Figure
5.1
Figure 5.1 Type of contact arrangement
5.2 Age of child
Table 5.2 shows that older children from the resident parent
sample were less likely to have had their contact arrangements
informally agreed between parents but more likely than younger
children to have never had their informal contact arrangements
agreed between their parents. Over two-in-five children (42%)
aged 11 to 16 years had their arrangements informally agreed
between their parents compared with 55% of children aged under
11 years. However, 41% of children aged between 11 and 16
years had not had their informal contact arrangements agreed
compared to one-in-three (31%) children aged under 11 years.
This pattern is not evident among the sample of children whose
non-resident parent responded.
Children aged 5 years and younger whose resident
parent responded to the survey were less likely than older
children to have had the contact arrangements ordered by a
court (4% compared with 10% for children aged 6 years and
over). Again, this finding was not apparent within the non-resident
parent sample. Younger children in the non-resident sample
were less likely to have had the contact arrangements negotiated
by mediators or lawyers however this finding is not significantly
significant. Table 5.2
5.3 Distance between child's home and non-residents
parent's home
The nearer the non-resident parent lived to the child the
more likely it was that the contact arrangements were informally
agreed between parents. However, this pattern is reversed
for informal contact arrangements that were never agreed:
the nearer the non-resident parent lives to the child the
less likely it is that the informal arrangements had never
been agreed.
Figure 5.2 Type of contact arrangement by distance child lives
from non-resident parent
Around two-thirds of children whose non-resident parent lived
less than 10 miles away had the contact arrangements informally
agreed between parents (60% of children whose resident parent
responded and 65% of children whose non-resident parent was
the respondent).
The further the non-resident parent lived from the child the
more often the informal contact arrangements were never agreed.
A quarter (25%) of children from the resident sample who lived
less than 10 miles away from their non-resident parent had
never had their informal contact arrangements agreed compared
with half the children (50%) who lived 50 miles or over from
their non-resident parent. This pattern is mirrored among
children whose non-resident parent was the respondent however
the differences are not statistically significant for this
sample.
Among the resident parent sample, the informal
contact arrangements for children whose non-resident parent
either lived abroad or the resident parent did not know where
the non-resident parent lived were most likely to have never
been agreed between the parents (60% of children in this sample
group). The base of the non-resident parent sample is too
small to allow comparisons with the resident parent sample.
Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2
5.4 Length of time since parents separated
Contact arrangements are more likely to be informally agreed
between parents if the parents had been separated for less
than three years. Two-thirds of children whose parents had
separated less than three years ago had their contact arrangements
informally agreed between their parents (67% for children
whose resident parent responded to the survey and 68% for
children whose non-resident parent was the respondent).
Children in the resident parent sample whose
parents had separated 3 years ago or more were more likely
to have had the contact arrangements ordered by the court
than children whose parents had separated less than three
years ago (13% and 2% respectively). This pattern was evident
for children from the non-resident sample but was not statistically
significant. Table 5.4
5.5 Frequency of contact
In general, the more frequently the child has some contact
with their non-resident parent the more likely it is that
the contact arrangements were informally agreed between parents.
This pattern is reversed for informal contact arrangements
that were never agreed between the parents: the less often
the child has contact with their non-resident parent the more
likely it is that the informal contact arrangements have never
been agreed.
Just under three quarters of children who have
direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once
a week had the contact arrangements informally agreed between
their parents (73% of both samples). Whereas, children who
had no contact with their non-resident parent were less likely
to have the contact arrangements informally agreed between
parents (12% of children whose resident parent responded and
33% of children from the non-resident sample).
The less often contact took place, the more
likely it is that the informal contact arrangements were never
agreed between the parents. Nearly half the children (47%)
from the resident parent sample who had indirect contact with
the non-resident parent less than once a week had never had
the informal contact arrangements agreed between their parents
compared with 19% of children in the same sample who had direct
contact at least once a week. Children who had no contact
with the non-resident parent were those most likely to have
never had the informal arrangements agreed between their parents:
nearly three-quarters (72%) of children whose resident parent
was the respondent and nearly half (49%) the children whose
non-resident parent was the respondent.
Formal contact arrangements were more likely
to have been made for children who had either direct or indirect
contact with their non-resident parent less than once a week.
Among the non-resident parent sample, a quarter (26%) of children
who had contact less than once a week with their non-resident
parent had the contact arrangements ordered by a court compared
with one-in-ten children (11%) who had contact with their
non-resident parent at least once a week. Similarly among
the resident parent sample, 15% of children who had direct
or indirect contact with their non-resident parent less than
once a week had the arrangements ordered by a court compared
with 5% of children who had contact with their non-resident
parent at least once a week. This pattern is mirrored in the
resident parent sample for contact arrangements negotiated
by mediators or lawyers. Children from the resident parent
sample who had direct or indirect contact with the non-resident
parent less than once a week were more likely to have had
the contact arrangements negotiated by mediators or lawyers
than children who had direct and indirect contact at least
once a week (8% and 5% respectively). Table 5.5
5.6 Further analysis
Logistic regression can be used to predict a dependent variable
on the basis of independent variables. In this report, logistic
regression was used to produce relative risk ratios for factors
that could impact on the frequency of contact a child has
with their non-resident parent. Each relative risk ratio predicts
the odds of a child being in a specific group as compared
to a baseline group. The variable entered in the model was
type of contact arrangement.
There is a significant difference in frequency
of contact between children who had never had their informal
contact arrangements agreed and children who had the contact
arrangements informally agreed between their parents. Those
children who had never had the informal contact arrangements
agreed were more likely to have less frequent contact with
their non-resident parent than children who had the contact
arrangements informally agreed between their parents.
Children who had never had the informal contact
arrangements agreed were more likely to have indirect contact
with their non-resident parent at least once a week than to
have direct contact once a week when compared with children
who had the arrangements informally agreed between their parents
(children from the non-resident parent sample were five times
more likely and children from the resident parent sample were
twice as likely).
Looking at children from the non-resident parent
sample, those who had never had the informal contact arrangements
agreed were six times more likely to have contact (direct
or indirect) less than once a week than to have direct contact
at least once a week when compared with children who had the
contact arrangements informally agreed between their parents.
Similarly, in the resident parent sample, when compared to
children who had the contact arrangements informally agreed
between their parents, children who had never had the informal
contact arrangements agreed were six times more likely to
have indirect contact less than once a week than direct contact
once a week.
The analysis shows that when compared with children
whose contact arrangements were informally agreed between
their parents, children who had never had the informal contact
arrangements agreed were more likely to have no contact with
the non-resident parent rather than have direct contact once
a week (children from the non-resident sample were eleven
times more likely and children from the resident sample were
fifteen times more likely).
In the resident parent sample, contact arrangements
ordered by a court have an impact on the frequency of contact.
Children who had the arrangements ordered by a court had less
frequent contact with their non-resident parent when compared
to children who had the arrangements agreed informally between
parents. When compared to children who had their contact arrangements
informally agreed between parents, children who had their
contact arrangements ordered by a court were four times more
likely to have indirect contact at least once a week or have
direct contact less than once a week than have direct contact
once a week. Comparing the same groups, children who had their
contact arrangements ordered by a court were 32 times more
likely to have indirect contact less than once a week and
18 times more likely to have no contact with the non-resident
parent than to have direct contact once a week. This is echoed
for the non-resident sample but the results are not statistically
significant.
Contact arrangements negotiated by mediators
or lawyers was a significant factor for children from the
resident-parent sample when examining children who had no
contact with their non-resident parent against children who
had the arrangements informally agreed between their parents.
When compared to children who had their contact arrangements
informally agreed between their parents, children who had
their arrangements negotiated by a mediator or lawyer were
18 times more likely to have no contact with their non-resident
parent than have direct contact at least once a week. This
pattern was evident for the non-resident sample but was not
statistically significant. Tables 5.6 & 5.7
5.7 Characteristics of the responding parent
Male parents within the non-resident sample are more likely
to have informally arranged the contact arrangements than
female parents within this sample. Children with male non-resident
parents were more likely to have had the contact arrangements
informally agreed between their parents than children with
female non-resident parents. Children of male non-resident
parents were also more likely to have never agreed the informal
contact arrangements (23% of males compared with 10% of females).
Conversely, nearly a third (31%) of children whose non-resident
parent was female had the contact arrangements ordered by
a court compared to one-in-ten children whose non-resident
parent was male (11%). Table 5.8
The following analysis has been undertaken looking
at the characteristics of the responding parent. Data on parents'
characteristics were only collected for the responding parent
and refer to that respondent. It should be noted that characteristics
may not necessarily be the same as the child's or the other
parent.
Responding parents were classified by the National
Statistics Socio-Economic Classification. Children from the
non-resident parent sample whose responding parent was in
the intermediate occupation group were more likely to have
never had their informal contact arrangements agreed between
parents (33% compared with 21% for higher occupations and
16% for lower occupations). Parents from the intermediate
occupation group were also less likely than those from the
lower occupation group to have informally agreed the contact
arrangements between parents (49% and 65% respectively). These
patterns were not evident in the resident parent sample.
Children whose responding non-resident parent
was in the higher occupations socio-economic group were more
likely to have had their contact arrangements negotiated by
mediators or lawyers than children whose responding parent
was in the lower socio-economic group. For example, amongst
children in the non-resident parent sample, 10% of those whose
non-resident parent was in the higher occupations socio-economic
group had their contact arrangements negotiated by mediators
or lawyers compared with 3% of children whose parent was in
the lower occupations socio-economic group. Furthermore, within
the non-resident parent sample the following differences between
the socio-economic groups were found. Children from the non-resident
sample whose parent was in the higher occupation group were
less likely than other non-residents to have had the contact
arrangements ordered by a court (7% compared with 13% for
intermediate group occupations and 16% for lower occupations).
These patterns were not mirrored in the resident sample. Table
5.9
Table 5.10 would suggest that ethnicity may
be a factor contributing to how the contact arrangements are
agreed between parents. Within the resident parent sample
children whose resident parent was non-white were less likely
to have informal contact arrangements agreed between their
parents and more likely to have informal contact arrangements
that have never been agreed between their parents when compared
with children whose resident parent was white. Nearly a third
of children in the resident parent sample (31%) whose resident
parent was non-white had their contact arrangements informally
agreed between their parents compared with half (52%) the
children whose resident parent was white. Over half (58%)
the children in the resident parent sample whose resident
parent was non-white had never agreed the informal contact
arrangements compared with a third of children whose resident
parent was white (33%). This pattern was reversed for children
from the non-resident sample but was not found to be statistically
significant.
The contact arrangements for children from the
resident parent sample whose resident parent was white were
more likely to have been negotiated by mediators or lawyers
than children whose resident parent was non-white (6% and
2% respectively). This pattern is mirrored for children from
the non-resident parent sample: 6% of children whose non-resident
parent was white had their contact arrangements negotiated
by mediators or lawyers whilst no children whose non-resident
parent was non-white had had their contact arrangements agreed
in this way. Table 5.10
Informal arrangements were most likely to have
been agreed between parents with qualifications, whereas parents
with no qualifications were more likely to have never agreed
the informal arrangements. Over half of children, in both
samples, whose responding parent had qualifications had had
their contact arrangements informally agreed between their
parents (53% of children in the resident parent sample and
66% of children in the non-resident parent sample) compared
with 38% of children in the resident parent sample and 48%
of children in the non-resident parent sample whose responding
parent did not have qualifications. Children of respondents
who had no qualifications were more likely to have never had
their informal contact arrangements agreed than respondents
with qualifications (46% compared with 33% for children whose
resident parent responded and 30% compared with 17% for children
whose non-resident parent was the respondent). Table 5.11
5.8 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
Parents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the contact
arrangements. They were asked to answer using the following
scale:
1. Very satisfied
2. Fairly satisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Fairly dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
The categories 'fairly dissatisfied' and 'very
dissatisfied' have been combined because of the small bases
associated with them.
Overall, there was satisfaction with the contact
arrangements. Approximately 70% of parents of children in
both groups reported satisfaction with the contact arrangements
- that is they were either satisfied or very satisfied (72%
of parent responses in the resident parent sample and 69%
of parent responses in the non-resident parent sample). This
is discussed further in Chapter 3 of the report. Table 5.12
Figure 5.3 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
by type of contact arrangement
On the whole, responding parents who had informally agreed
the contact arrangements between themselves were mainly satisfied.
These parents were less likely to be dissatisfied than parents
of children who agreed the contact arrangements by other methods
(82% of parent responses in the resident parent sample and
87% of parent responses in the non-resident parent sample
were either satisfied or very satisfied with the contact arrangements).
Within the resident parent sample, the responding
parents of children who had never agreed their informal contact
arrangements or those that had their contact arrangements
negotiated by mediators or lawyers were less likely to be
very satisfied with the contact arrangements than parents
who agreed the arrangements in other ways (37% for both subgroups
compared with 55% of parents of children whose arrangements
had been informally agreed between parents and 44% of parents
of children whose arrangements were ordered by court). This
pattern is not evident for the non-resident sample.
Satisfaction with contact arrangements that
had been ordered by a court or negotiated by mediators or
lawyers was low, especially amongst parents from the non-resident
parent sample. Over half (57%) of the parents of children
whose non-resident parent was the respondent and 26% of parents
of children whose resident parent responded to the survey
and had their contact arrangements ordered by court were dissatisfied
with the contact arrangements. Over a third (38%) of parent
responses for children whose non-resident parent responded
and had their contact arrangements negotiated by mediators
or lawyers were dissatisfied with the contact arrangements
compared with a quarter (26%) of parents of children whose
resident parent responded to the survey and had their contact
arrangements negotiated by a mediator or lawyer. Table 5.13
and Figure 5.3
The length of time the parents were in a relationship has
no significant impact on the satisfaction the parent has with
the contact arrangements. Table 5.14
Responding parents of children in the non-resident
parent sample who were not
currently in a relationship stated twice as often as parents
who had repartnered and not had children that they were very
satisfied with the contact arrangements (60% compared with
33%). In the resident sample, responding parents who were
not currently in a relationship stated more often than parents
who had repartnered and not had children that they were very
satisfied with the contact arrangements however this was not
statistically significant.
In both samples, parents who had repartnered
but had not had children were less likely to report satisfaction
with the contact arrangements than parents who had repartnered
and had a child or parents who were not currently in a relationship.
In the resident sample, 68% of parent responses reported satisfaction
compared with 77% of parent responses for parents who had
repartnered and had children and 73% of parent responses for
parents who were not currently in a relationship. In the non-resident
sample, 58% of parent responses reported satisfaction compared
with 74% of parent responses for parents who had repartnered
and had children and 82% of parent responses for parents who
were not currently in a relationship.
Satisfaction with contact arrangements among
the responding parents in the non-resident sample who had
repartnered but not had children was lower than among other
parents. These parents were more likely to be dissatisfied
than respondents who had repartnered and had children and
respondents who were not currently in a relationship (31%
compared with 16% and 12% respectively). Table 5.15
5.9 Improvements to contact arrangements
Responding parents who said they were neither 'fairly satisfied'
nor 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements were asked
how the contact arrangements with their child (and the non-resident
parent) could be improved. The answers were recorded verbatim
and a coding frame was devised.
The coding frame was as follows:
1. Non-resident parent to see child
2. Non-resident parent to see child more often
3. Non-resident parent to contact child more often
4. Better communication between parents
5. Non-resident parent to have custody
6. Child to stay at non-resident parents home more often
7. Contact arrangements to be honoured
8. Nothing can be done to improve contact arrangements
9. Other
Figure 5.4 Improvements to contact arrangements
Increase in contact between the child and their non-resident
parent were popular improvements mentioned by parents of children
in both samples. These are discussed in Chapter 3 of the report.
Responding parents of children in the non-resident
sample said the main improvement they would like to see was
better communication with the other parent (31%). Less than
one-in-ten (7%) responding parents in the resident sample
saw this as a way of improving contact arrangements.
Responding parents of children from the non-resident
parent sample reported that custody of the child would improve
the contact arrangements (9%) and a small number (3%) said
that the contact arrangements being honoured would improve
the contact arrangements. None of the responding parents in
the resident parent sample stated this as an improvement to
the contact arrangements.
Fourteen per cent of parents of children in
the resident parent sample who stated that they were not satisfied
with the arrangements, reported that nothing could be done
to improve the contact arrangements. All of the responding
non-resident parents gave at least one improvement that they
would like to see to the contact arrangements.
There are a large number of responses in the
'other' category and most of these relate to very specific
improvements to contact arrangements. Unfortunately therefore
these answers cannot be reported for reasons of confidentiality.
Table 5.16 and Figure 5.4
APPENDIX A:
THE OMNIBUS SURVEY
The Omnibus Survey is a multi-purpose survey
carried out by the Office for National Statistics for use
by Government departments and other public or non-profit making
bodies. Interviewing is carried out during eight months of
the year (two months each quarter) and each month's questionnaire
covers a variety of topics, reflecting different user's requirements.
The sample
A random probability sample of 3,000 private
households in Great Britain is selected each month using the
small users' Postcode Address File as a sampling frame. One
hundred new postal sectors are selected and are stratified
by region, the proportion of households renting from local
authorities and the proportion in which the head of the household
is in Socio-Economic Groups 1-5 or 13 (that is a professional,
employer or manager). These stratifiers are obtained from
Census data. The postal sectors are selected with probability
proportional to size and within each sector 30 addresses are
selected randomly.
Within households with more than one adult,
one person aged 16 or over is randomly selected for interview.
No proxy interviews are taken.
Fieldwork
Interviews are carried out face-to-face by interviewers
trained to carry out a range of ONS surveys. The Omnibus Survey
uses computer-assisted interviewing which has well documented
effects on the quality of the data. Advance letters are sent
to all addresses giving a brief account of the survey. Interviewers
must make at least three or four calls at an address at different
times of the day and week. As with all ONS surveys, a quality
check on fieldwork is carried out through recall interviews
with a proportion of respondents.
A module asking about non-resident parental
contact was run on the National Statistics Omnibus Survey
in April, June, July, August, September, October and November
2002 on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department, now the
Department for Constitutional Affairs. This module was offered
to respondents as a self-completion module. The Omnibus Survey
ran to capacity in April and July and was unable to carry
the entire module in these months because of the additional
time it would add to the overall interview length. Consequently,
the Omnibus Survey asked a few questions in these months to
identify eligible respondents for the non-resident parental
contact module and then follow-up telephone interviews were
conducted by the Telephone Unit at ONS. The same quality standards
are applied to interviews conducted over the telephone as
those conducted face-to-face.
Weighting
Because only one household member is interviewed
at each address, people in households containing few adults
have a higher probability of selection than those in households
with many. Where the unit of analysis is individual adults,
a weighting factor is applied to correct for this unequal
probability of selection.
Overall the number of telephone interviews made
up a small percentage of the total sample for this module
of questions and whilst there was a small drop out rate between
the Omnibus Survey face-to-face interview and the telephone
interview these respondents did not vary demographically from
the main Omnibus Survey. Therefore, after consultation with
the Methodology Unit at ONS the same weight has been applied
to the whole dataset. The data in this report is based at
the child level so the weight was recalculated and standardised
and applied to the dataset.
Percentages shown in this report have been calculated
using weighted data, whilst the bases in the Tables are the
number of actual cases within each category (unweighted totals).
Response Rates
The small users' Postal Address File includes
some business addresses and other addresses, such as new and
empty properties, at which no private households are living.
The expected proportion of such addresses, which are classified
as ineligible, is about 11-12%. This figure is removed before
the response rate is calculated.
The overall response rate for the April, June,
July, August, September, October and November 2002 cycles
of the National Omnibus Survey was 70% as shown in Table A.1.
Table A.1: Household level response of the Omnibus
Survey for the months in which the non-resident parental contact
questions were asked (April, June, July, August, September,
October, November)
No. % %
Set sample 21,000 100
Ineligible addresses 1750 8
Eligible addresses 19250 92 100
Refusals 4192 22
Non-Contacts 1552 8
Achieved interviews 13506 70
The full module was only asked of respondents who were non-resident
parents or resident parents. Non-resident parents are respondents
who have had a child from a previous relationship which has
broken down and the child lives with the other birth parent.
Resident parents are respondents who live with a child from
a previous relationship and the other birth parent does not
live with them. Table A.2 shows that 90% of respondents eligible
for the module (that is those who were either a resident or
non-resident parent) answered the full set of questions (a
total of 938 interviews).
Table A.2: Response to the full module - April, June, July,
August, September, October, November
No. %
Omnibus achieved 13506 70
Eligible for screening questions 11788 87
(All respondents except widowed respondents)
Response to screening questions 11667 99
Respondents with child
from previous relationship 1043
Full interviews achieved 935 90
NB (i) On the April and July Omnibus Survey,
a sample was established and follow-up telephone interviews
were conducted with respondents who agreed to recall: response
was not affected by the telephone recall.
APPENDIX B:
COPY OF THE PAPER QUESTIONNAIRE
Below is a copy of the full module that was
used for the National Statistics Omnibus Survey. The same
questions were administered for the telephone interviews.
Module 310 - Non-resident parental contact
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
M310_Intr
The next set of questions are being asked on behalf of the
Lord Chancellor's Department and are about children who may
not be living with you at present or who live with you but
not with their other birth parent.
(1) Self-completion accepted and completed
(2) Completed by interviewer
(3) Section refused
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
M310_NRC
(May I just check,) Do you have any children under the age
of 16 from a previous relationship whose main residence is
with the other parent?
INTERVIEWER: INCLUDE ONLY BIRTH CHILDREN. DO NOT INCLUDE ADOPTED
OR STEPCHILDREN WHO ARE NO LONGER LIVING WITH YOU.
ONLY INCLUDE CHILDREN WHOSE MAIN RESIDENCE IS WITH THE OTHER
PARENT.
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Own child adopted/fostered - SPONTANEOUS
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or complete by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_NmA
How many children do you have under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent?
1..15
Next set of questions asked separately for each child
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_1
Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is elsewhere/
Thinking about your next eldest child whose main residence
is elsewhere.
How old is this child?
0..15
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_2
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
Is this child a boy or a girl?
(1) Boy
(2) Girl
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_3
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
How often do you usually see this child? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/or once every three months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) Do you never see this child?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child less often
M310_3a
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
(May I just check,) When did you last see this child?
(1) Less than a year ago
(2) One year but less than 5 years
(3) 5 years but less than 10 years
(4) 10 years and over
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_4
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
How often do you usually contact this child by letter, phone,
fax, e-mail or send them cards or presents on special occasions
such as birthdays and Christmas? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/or once every three months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) Do you never contact this child?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_5
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
How far away do you live from this child?
DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR/RESPONDENTS HOME AND THE CHILDS HOME
IN MILES
(1) Less than 10 miles
(2) 10 miles to less than 50 miles
(3) 50 miles to less than 100 miles
(4) 100 miles to less than 150 miles
(5) 150 miles and over
(6) Child lives abroad
(7) Don't know
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
M310_6M
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
Where do you spend time with this child?
CODE ALL THAT APPLY
SET [7] OF
(1) At your home
(2) At the other parents home
(3) At a relatives/friends house
(4) At a contact centre
(5) Place of leisure, ie shops, restaurant, cafe, leisure
centre
(6) School
(7) Other - please specify
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
AND: Other reason at M310_6M
Spec1
PLEASE RECORD OTHER PLACE YOU/RESPONDENT MEETS THIS CHILD
STRING[225]
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
M310_7
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
How often does this child stay overnight at your home? Is
it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) At least once a week
(2) At least once a month
(3) Only in the school holidays/or once every three months
(4) Once or twice a year
(5) Less often, or
(6) Never
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_8
SHOWCARD C310_8
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
(Thinking about arrangements for seeing this child and for
contacting this child by letter, phone, e-mail or card and
fax.)
How satisfied are you with the current arrangements?
(1) Very satisfied
(2) Fairly satisfied
(3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
(4) Fairly dissatisfied
(5) Very dissatisfied
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
AND: not satisfied or very satisfied with contact arrangements
M310_9
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
How could the contact arrangements you have with this child
be improved?
INTERVIEWER: RECORD VERBATIM.
OPEN
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
M310_10
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
Were the contact arrangements agreed between you and the other
parent, negotiated by a mediator or lawyer, ordered by a court
or never formally agreed?
(1) Agreed between parents
(2) Negotiated by mediators/lawyers
(3) Ordered by a court
(4) Never formally agreed
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
AND: Non-resident parent does not see child at own home
M310_11M
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
Why do you not spend time with this child at your own home?
INTERVIEWER: DO NOT PROMPT
SET [9] OF
(1) Distance
(2) Unsuitable accommodation
(3) Choose to meet elsewhere
(4) Not agreed by other parent
(5) Court order
(6) Difficult with handover arrangements
(7) More convenient to meet elsewhere
(8) To keep address confidential
(9) Other - please specify
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: See child at least once or twice a year OR see child
less often but have seen child in last 10 years.
AND: Non-resident parent does not see child at own home
AND: Other reason at M310_11M
Spec2
PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER REASON WHY YOU DO/ RESPONDENT DOES NOT
MEET CHILD AT YOUR OWN HOME
STRING[225]
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_12
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
Do you pay child maintenance for this child?
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: Does pay child maintenance
M310_13
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
How did you agree the arrangements for child maintenance for
this child? Was it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Informally between self and former partner
(2) Through the child support agency
(3) Through a Family Mediation Service
(4) Through lawyer or court, or
(5) other arrangement?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: Does pay child maintenance
AND: Other arrangement at M310_13
Spec3
PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER ARRANGEMENT MADE TO PAY CHILD MAINTENANCE
STRING[225]
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_14
(Thinking about your eldest child whose main residence is
elsewhere/ Thinking about your next eldest child whose main
residence is elsewhere.)
ASK OR RECORD
(May I just check,) How long is it since you separated from
the child's mother/father?
(1) Less than year
(2) One year to less than two years
(3) 2 years to less than 3 years
(4) Three years and over
(5) Never in relationship with other parent
End of set of questions
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_15
May I just check, are you currently in a relationship?
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: Currently in a relationship
M310_16
Has this relationship caused problems with contact between
you and your child(ren)?
(1) Yes, all of the time
(2) Yes, some of the time
(3) Never
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: Currently in a relationship
M310_17
May I just check, have you had a child in your current relationship?
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
AND: Currently in a relationship
AND: Had child in current relationship
M310_18
Has having a child caused problems with contact between you
and your child(ren) from a previous relationship?
(1) Yes, all of the time
(2) Yes, some of the time
(3) Never
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
M310_RC
(May I just check,) Are any of the children aged under 16
who live with you from a previous relationship of yours? Please
do not include adopted or step children.
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_NmB
How many children do you have under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship that live with you?
1..15
Next set of questions asked separately for each child
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_19
Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.
How old is this child?
0..15
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_20
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
Is this child a boy or a girl?
(1) Boy
(2) Girl
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_21
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
How often does the other parent usually see this child? Is
it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/or once every 3 months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) do they never see this child?
(8) Other parent is deceased – do not prompt
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is deceased and more than one child from
previous relationship living in household
M310_Dec
ASK OR RECORD
(May I just check,) Are all the children by the same father/mother
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Non-resident parent sees child less often
M310_21a
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
(May I just check,) When did the other parent last see this
child?
(1) Less than a year ago
(2) One year but less than 5 years
(3) 5 years but less than 10 years
(4) 10 years and over
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_22
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
How often does the other parent usually contact this child
by letter, phone, fax, e-mail or send them cards or presents
on special occasions such as birthdays and Christmas? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/or once every 3 months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) do they never contact this child?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_23
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
How far away does the parent live from you and this child?
DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR/RESPONDENTS HOME AND THE OTHER CHILDS
PARENTS HOME IN MILES
(1) Less than 10 miles
(2) 10 to less than 50 miles
(3) 50 to less than 100 miles
(4) 150 miles and over
(5) Parent lives abroad
(6) Don't know
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Non-resident parent sees child at least once or twice
a year OR see child less often but have seen child in last
10 years.
M310_24M
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
Where does the other parent spend time with this child?
CODE ALL THAT APPLY
SET [7] OF
(1) At your home
(2) At the other parents home
(3) At a relatives house
(4) At a contact centre
(5) Place of leisure, ie shops, restaurant, cafe, leisure
centre
(6) School
(7) Other - please specify
(8) Don't know
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Non-resident parent sees child at least once or twice
a year OR see child less often but have seen child in last
10 years.
AND: Other reason at M310_24M
Spec5
PLEASE RECORD PLACE THE OTHER PARENT MEETS THIS CHILD
STRING[225]
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Non-resident parent sees child at least once or twice
a year OR see child less often but have seen child in last
10 years.
M310_25
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
How often does this child stay overnight at the other parents
home? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) At least once a week
(2) At least once a month
(3) Only in the school holidays/or once every 3 months
(4) Once or twice a year
(5) Less often, or
(6) Never?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_26
SHOWCARD C310_8
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
(Thinking about arrangements the other parent has for seeing
this child and for contacting this child by letter, phone,
e-mail or card and fax.)
How satisfied are you with the current arrangements?
(1) Very satisfied
(2) Fairly satisfied
(3) Neither satisfied or dissatisfied
(4) Fairly dissatisfied
(5) Very dissatisfied
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: not satisfied or very satisfied with contact arrangements
M310_27
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
How could the contact arrangements be improved?
INTERVIEWER: RECORD VERBATIM.
OPEN
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_28
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
Were the contact arrangements agreed between you and the other
parent, negotiated by a mediator or lawyer, ordered by a court
or never formally agreed?
(1) Agreed between parents
(2) Negotiated by mediators/lawyers
(3) Ordered by a court
(4) Never formally agreed
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Child does not see non-resident parent at non-resident
parent's home
M310_29M
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
Why does this child not spend time at the other parents own
home?
INTERVIEWER: DO NOT PROMPT
SET [9] OF
(1) Distance
(2) Unsuitable accommodation
(3) Choose to meet elsewhere
(4) Not agreed by other parent
(5) Court order
(6) Difficult with handover arrangements
(7) More convenient to meet elsewhere
(8) To keep address confidential
(9) Other - please specify
(10) Don't know
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Child does not see non-resident parent at non-resident
parent's home
AND: Other reason at M310_29M
Spec6
PLEASE RECORD OTHER REASON WHY OTHER PARENT DOES NOT MEET
THIS CHILD AT THEIR HOME
STRING[225]
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_30
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
Does the other parent pay child maintenance for this child?
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Non-resident parent pays child maintenance
M310_31
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
How did you agree the arrangements for child maintenance for
this child? Was it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Informally between self and former partner
(2) Through the child support agency
(3) Through a Family Mediation Service
(4) Through lawyer or court, or
(5) other arrangement?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Non-resident parent pays child maintenance
AND: Other arrangement at M310_24
Spec7
PLEASE SPECIFY OTHER ARRANGEMENT MADE TO PAY CHILD MAINTENANCE
STRING[225]
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_32
(Thinking about your eldest child who lives with you./ Thinking
about your next eldest child who lives with you.)
ASK OR RECORD
(May I just check,) How long is it since you separated from
the child's mother/father?
(1) Less than year
(2) One year to less than two years
(3) 2 years to less than 3 years
(4) Three years and over
(5) Never in relationship with other parent
End of set of questions
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
M310_33
ASK OR RECORD
May I just check, are you currently in a relationship?
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Respondent currently in relationship
M310_34
Has this relationship caused problems with contact between
the other parent and your child(ren)?
(1) Yes, all of the time
(2) Yes, some of the time
(3) Never
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected for self-completion
or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Respondent currently in relationship
M310_35
ASK OR RECORD
May I just check, have you had a child in your current relationship?
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed and elected
for self-completion or completion by interviewer.
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
AND: Other parent is not deceased
AND: Respondent currently in relationship
AND: Respondent had child in current relationship
M310_36
Has having a child caused problems with contact between the
other parent and your child(ren) from a previous relationship?
(1) Yes, all of the time
(2) Yes, some of the time
(3) Never
Below is a copy of the questions used on the National Statistics
Omnibus Survey in April and July to obtain a sample suitable
for the telephone follow-up interview.
Module 310 - Non-resident parental contact
(April and July Omnibus Cycles)
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
M310_Intro
The next set of questions are about children who may not be
living with you at present or who live with you but not with
their other birth parent.
(1) PRESS ENTER TO CONTINUE
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
M310_1
(May I just check,) do you have any children under the age
of 16 from a previous relationship whose main residence is
with the other parent?
INTERVIEWER: INCLUDE ONLY BIRTH CHILDREN. DO NOT INCLUDE ADOPTED
OR STEPCHILDREN WHO ARE NO LONGER LIVING WITH THE RESPONDENT.
ONLY INCLUDE CHILDREN WHOSE MAIN RESIDENCE IS ELSEWHERE. DO
NOT INCLUDE CHILDREN WHO ARE TEMPORARILY ABSENT, SUCH AS THOSE
AWAY AT BOARDING SCHOOL.
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Own child adopted/fostered - SPONTANEOUS
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_2
How many children do you have under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent?
1..15
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_3
(Thinking of all the children you have who are not living
with you,) How often do you usually see (at least one) this
child (of these children)? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/ or once every three months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) do you never see this (these) child(ren)?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
M310_4
(Thinking of all these children,) how often do you usually
contact this child (these children) by letter, phone, fax,
e-mail or send them cards or presents on special occasions
such as birthdays and Christmas? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/ or once every three months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) do you never contact this (these) child(ren)?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
M310_5
(May I just check,) is the child (are any of the children)
who lives (live) with you from a previous relationship of
yours? Please do not include adopted or step children.
INTERVIEWER: INCLUDE ONLY BIRTH CHILDREN. DO NOT INCLUDE ADOPTED
OR STEPCHILDREN.
(1) Yes
(2) No
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_6
ASK OR RECORD
How many children under the age of 16 do you have, who live
with you from a previous relationship?
1..15
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_7
(Thinking of all the children under 16 who live with you from
a previous relationship,) How often does the other parent
usually see (at least one) this child (of these children)?
Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/ or once every three months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) do they never see this (these) child(ren)?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Respondent is parent of a child aged under 16 in household
AND: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_8
(Thinking of all the children under 16 who live with you from
a previous relationship,) How often does the other parent
usually contact (at least one) this child (of these children)
by letter, phone, fax, e-mail or send them cards or presents
on special occasions such as birthdays or Christmas? Is it...
RUNNING PROMPT
(1) Every day
(2) At least once a week
(3) At least once a month
(4) Only in the school holidays/ or once every three months
(5) Once or twice a year
(6) Less often, or
(7) do they never see this (these) child(ren)?
ASK IF: Respondent is not widowed
AND: Have a child aged under the age of 16 from a previous
relationship whose main residence is with the other parent
OR: Respondent has child aged under 16 from a previous relationship
who lives with them
M310_9
Would it be alright if we contacted you again about this subject
sometime in the next three months?
INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU RECORD THE TELEPHONE NUMBER
FOR RESPONDENTS WHO GIVE PERMISSION IN THE ADMIN BLOCK.
(1) Permission given
(2) Permission refused
APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL TERMS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
Standard errors
The standard error is a measure of the degree
to which a percentage (or other summary statistic) would vary
if repeatedly calculated in a series of samples. The standard
error provides a measure of variability and is used in the
calculation of confidence intervals and statistical significance
tests. In this survey, simple random sampling did not take
place; rather, a multi-stage stratified sampling design was
used. To take account of the design of this survey, standard
errors and confidence intervals (see below) were calculated
using STATA. However, this does not affect the interpretation
of the standard errors or their use in the calculation of
confidence intervals.
Confidence interval
The estimate produced from a sample survey will
rarely be identical to the population value, but statistical
theory allows us to measure the accuracy of any survey result.
The standard error can be estimated from the values obtained
for the sample and allows the calculation of confidence intervals
which give an indication of the range in which the true population
value is likely to fall.
It is common when quoting confidence intervals
to refer to the 95% confidence interval around a survey estimate.
This is calculated at 1.96 times the standard error on either
side of the estimated percentage or mean since, under a normal
distribution, 95% of values lie within 1.96 standard errors
of the mean value. If it were possible to repeat the survey
under the same conditions many times, 95% of these confidence
intervals would contain the population values but, when assessing
the results of a single survey, it is usual to assume that
there is only a 5% chance that the true population value falls
outside the 95% confidence interval calculated for the survey
estimate. The 95% confidence interval for the difference between
two percentages is then given by:
(p 1 -p 2 ) +/- 1.96 x se (p 1 -p 2 )
If this confidence interval includes zero then
the observed difference is considered to be a result of chance
variation in the sample. If the interval does not include
zero then it is unlikely (less than 5% probability) that the
observed difference could have occurred by chance.
Multinomial logistic regression
Logistic regression can be used to predict a
dependent variable on the basis of independent variables.
Multinomial logistic regression handles multicategory responses.
The number of categories involved at each variable used in
the analysis is more than two and multinominal logistic regression
takes this into account. The logit model for nominal responses
was used. The variable categories could be considered to be
ordinal but for this analysis were treated as nominal.
In this report, logistic regression analysis
has been used in the analysis of the survey data to provide
a measure of the effect of various variables on frequency
of contact. Unlike the crosstabulations presented in the report,
logistic regression estimates the effect of a variable while
controlling for the confounding effect of other variables
in the analysis.
Logistic regression produces an estimate of
the probability of a factor occurring when a child is in a
certain group compared to a reference category. This effect
is measured in terms of relative risk ratio for factors that
could impact on the frequency of contact a child has with
their non-resident parent. Each relative risk ratio predicts
the odds of a child being in a specific group as compared
to a baseline group. For example, Table 5.7 shows that children
who had never had the arrangements formally agreed between
their parents were 4.7 times more likely to have indirect
contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent
rather than direct contact once a week when compared to the
reference group of children who had arrangements formally
agreed between parents.
The number of responses from the non-resident
parent sample who had either direct contact less than once
a week or indirect contact less than once a week was too small
to provide appropriate analysis. For this sample, direct and
indirect contact less than once a week have been combined.
In both samples, analysis by distance between the homes of
the child and their non-resident parent does not include children
or parents who lived abroad as these groups were too small
for any meaningful analysis. Similarly, analysis by length
of separation does not include parents who had never been
in a relationship because the sample group was too small.
In addition, analysis at the child level involves
potential clustering, whereby parents who have more than one
child will be represented more often than parents with one
child. The logistic regression analysis was undertaken in
the statistical package, STATA which takes accounts of any
potential clustering.
Contrast the UK ‘’research’’
with the below:
Lord Falconer quote 1:
"There cannot and will not be an automatic
presumption of 50/50 contact. Children cannot be divided like
the furniture or the CD collection. It's more complex than
that."
This classic piece of spin doctoring has its
genesis in the Solomon Parable examined in this comment.
Moreover, Lord Falconer wrongly suggests that
the majority of advocates are arguing in favour of some sort
of immutable legislatively mandated joint residence with a
fifty/fifty time share preference and deliberately ignores
the crucial word rebuttable contained in the reform program.
Finally, to use the words of Williams (1987)
“There are those who would believe that one can maintain
a good sense of parental identity by quality contacts––even
if those contacts are infrequent––compared with
quantity of custody contacts. That is just not so. Each of
our identities––be it our professional, or marital
or our parental identity––is fulfilled by both
the quality and quantity of our experiences.
If a cardiac surgeon does a masterful triple
by-pass once a year when he has been used to doing them once
a week he or she no longer truly feels like a practicing surgeon;
if a trial attorney performs brilliantly once a year when
he or she has been used to weekly courtroom work, he or she
no longer truly feels like a practicing trial attorney; if
I were to help only one child and that child's parents once
a year, I would no longer truly feel like a practicing family
and child psychiatrist. So too, when fathers and mothers are
wonderfully interactive, responsible, and loving with their
children, two to three times a month, when they have been
used to being with their children most every day, they no
longer truly feel like a parent
The Solomon Parable
And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword
before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child
in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Then
spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king,
for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord,
give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the
other said, Let it be neither thine, nor mine but divide it.
Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child,
and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof (I Kings
3:24–27).
Critics of joint residence with a fifty/fifty time share preference
often argue the account of the first recorded custody dispute,
between biological parent and stranger supports the assertion
that two competing parents cannot jointly nurture their child
after divorce. However, a reading of the parable does not
support such a conclusion. The lesson of the Solomon story
illustrates that in a child custody dispute between natural
parent and non–parent, other things being equal, the
claims of the birth parent are to be preferred, as a natural
parent is likely to be more solicitous about the welfare of
his or her child than a stranger.
The Hearing
Two women came to King Solomon both claiming to be the biological
parent of the same infant. Unable to determine which woman
was in fact the parent of the child, he commanded that the
child be cut in two by a sword and then divided equally between
the claimants. One woman spoke up, pleading with the King
to spare the child and to give the infant to the other woman.
Solomon decided that it was clearly in the child’s best
interests to be placed with her since she preferred that the
child be given to her rival, rather than have the child suffer
death because of their quarrel.
This contest was relatively straightforward for Solomon to
settle. The King reasoned that a biological parent would normally
have a greater concern about the welfare of their child than
a stranger. After hearing the replies from the two women,
Solomon knew that even if his assumption was wrong, he could
clearly make the correct decision according to the best interest
of the child. But what if both women who claimed to be the
child's mother had retracted their claims, how then to determine
the issue? Perhaps the royal drawing of lots would have enabled
the hard choice to be made.
If it had been a mother and father contesting custody, Solomon
would have decided the case according to the prevailing custody
law at the time––custody to the father (the sole
custody solution). Joint physical custody does not require
splitting a child away from any parent as do sole custody
decisions, but permits the child to continue and retain an
equal relationship established with both parents––just
as prevailed prior to separation or divorce.
In spite of all the data available, the legal profession has
been slow to recognise that the present system must be changed
in the best interests of all parties. This resistance to change
is based on disbelief that competitive parents can share the
nurturing of children. Part of the resistance rests on the
underlying assumption that divorcing parents are unable to
separate their marital differences from their parenting responsibilities,
and that it is necessary for the legal system to intrude and
award the children to one parent over the other. But human
nature is flexible and the legal system has to recognise that
warring ex-spouses can still be joint parents and the responsibility
for encouraging joint residence is part of the legal system
now.
Parental absence is one of our nation's most
serious problems of youth. Everything we know about the needs
of children teaches us that it is in the best interest of
children to maximize the involvement of both parents for the
benefit of the child. The amount of time a parent spends with
a child directly affects the parent’s competence in
dealing with the child.
As the divorce rate continues to climb, non-resident
fathers and their children are increasingly being separated
not by choice. The question Why are absent fathers absent?
is better replaced by the question How do so many persevere,
and hold on, despite reluctance by judicial officers to enforce
parenting orders and other pressures to give up and disappear?
The evidence is overwhelming and demands that we re-examine
the wisdom of conventional care taking of children following
the terminating a marriage. Unless you believe that a father's
value to his children diminishes after divorce, it is hard
to justify a family law policy that routinely and automatically
disrupts the divorced father's relationship with his children.
The notion that only mothers are important to
their children is certainly false; it is time to jettison
it from family law policy. If the treatment fathers receive
in the Family Court occurred in the workplace, an affirmative
action plan would likely be implemented to rectify the pervasive
discrimination and barriers fathers encounter as they seek
meaningful contact to their children in Family Courts.
As a society, we must move into the new century
armed with realistic legal practices, which protects the interests
of all members in the separated or divorced family. The continuation
of the de–facto presumption for sole residence, simply,
will not do. Even a cursory look at the research documents
that children are victimised by sole residence decisions in
at least three ways––emotional victimisation,
economic victimisation, and increased risk for child abuse.
To see the importance of joint residence, consider
how you, as an adult, would feel if you could see your children
only four days a month. Like most parents, you would miss
them terribly, even with your adult level of emotional maturity.
Children, with their fragile, still-developing emotions, often
suffer much more. Children naturally love and need both parents.
Joint residence is the means of preserving the child's right
to two parents and, where both parents seek to continue their
role as parents, the court should reduce neither parent to
a mere visitor unless the other parent comes forward with
a valid reason to do so.
Moreover, joint residence insofar as it allows them to continue
their relationship with both parents is what most children
want. Each of the studies that sought the views of children
indicates that while they would prefer the intact family of
origin, they are satisfied with joint residence and value
the opportunity to continue their relationship with both parents.
In Deborah Luepnitz’s (1982) work for example, nearly
all the joint physical custody children were content with
the arrangement. These children echoed the sole physical custody
children in responding to the question, “With whom would
you have wanted to live after the divorce?” by saying,
“With both.” Not only were joint physical custody
children not confused by the arrangement they were able to
cite specific advantages in the two–household lifestyle.
They described their arrangement as “more fun, more
interesting or more comfortable.”
An earlier investigation conducted by the University of Michigan
(1979) asked 165 school children in grades three to six from
divorced and intact families their custody preferences. The
study found that the majority of interviewed children wanted
to live half the week with one parent and the remaining half
of the week with their other parent. None of the children
in the divorced group had experienced this type of parenting.
The high prevalence of reconciliation fantasies among children
in sole custody arrangements would also seem to indicate a
strong desire for continued involvement of both parents in
children's lives.
'A more recent study adds weight to the view that children
are better off spending equal time with both parents after
divorce. The study is one of the first in Australia to look
at how children feel about spending time with their parents,
When they were asked how parents should care for children
after divorce, the most common answer was equal or half and
half. Half also said they wanted more time with their non-resident
parents (Parkinson, Cashmore & Single 2003).
This desire on the part of children is understandable, given
the evidence that children form meaningful attachment bonds
to both parents (Thompson 1983; Rohman, Sales & Lou 1987;
Warshak 2000). Further these data suggest that judicial decisions
resulting in One Size Fits All Sole Residence decisions may
abrogate the human rights of the child to know and love two
parents, thus victimizing those children needlessly.
In addition to the research concerning children’s better
adjustment in joint residence, there are other factors to
consider (Doll 1995; Bauserman 2002). The advantages of joint
residence include specific advantages for each parent, less
litigation (Luepnitz 1982; Doll 1995; Bauserman 2002) dramatically
higher compliance with child support orders (Montana Child
Support Advisory Council 1986; Lester 1991), falling divorce
rates (Guidabaldi & Kuhn) and equity.
As long as residence is an either/or arrangement,
the great pain of loss that children and their non–resident
parents suffer and the equally great pressures that the resident
parent must feel will continue to show up as the damaging
aftermath of divorce. The terrible pity of it is that it need
not be this way. However one looks at the future of divorced
couples and their children (or for that matter, the future
of successful intact families), logic and research is on the
side of joint residence as the presumptive first choice. The
case for joint residence is convincing and legislators should
move quickly to encourage this as the presumptive first choice
in the interests of children, parents, grandparents and the
wider society.
The Failed Pathway
Today nearly one in two marriages fail, bringing
psychological, economic and social vulnerability, to approximately
fifty thousand children whose parents divorce each year. From
a child's viewpoint, these divorces are unexpected, inexplicable
and unwelcome. Probably the most traumatic aspect of the divorce
experience for children is the sudden loss of a parent from
the home. In effect they awake one morning to find one parent
gone.(Wallerstein & Kelly 1980)
Divorce is so common today that the greeting card industry
has begun to package what it assumes are appropriate sentiments
for the occasion. Well over ninety thousand adults are in
are position to send their announcement each year and it does
not appear that the market has peaked. Court officers’
talk with some pride about the new simplified Divorce kit:
It's sort of like a tax pack––you just tick a
few boxes one explains.
With the growing numbers of children affected
by divorce there is increasing legal and community disquiet
that after twenty seven years of the Family Law Act, present
day methods of dealing with residence and contact issues are
not working satisfactorily.
• Why are there such proposals for change?
The answer is self evident, because no one likes the present
system. The children of divorce, parents, legal and health
professionals increasingly complain that the exclusivity of
sole residence is not benefiting anyone.
• Children complain that they miss their non–resident
parent; they experience guilt, tension and loyalty conflicts
as a result.
• Non–resident parents complain that they miss
their children; they feel depressed, alienated and powerless.
They become non–parents, in effect visited aunties or
uncles.
• Resident parents complain that they are over–burdened,
have too many responsibilities and that seeking work and having
the responsibility of full time parenting is too stressful.
• Judges complain that the court calendar is congested,
that child residence decisions demand the Wisdom of Solomon
and no matter which parent is awarded residence of the child,
the case will be back in court within a short period of time.
To these complaints can be added those of psychiatrists, psychologists
and sociologists who say that the current legal system does
not pay sufficient attention to human development, children's
needs, and the available data showing what is psychologically
in the best interests of children.
Others complain that the winner take all concepts
implied by sole residence treats the child as an object to
be fought over within the legal system.
As the tangle of divorce has been unpicked it
has become evident that divorce is a multi–faceted process,
spanning years rather than months. It affects children variously
according to their age and sex, where they are in the divorce
process and how that process is managed (Hetherington, Cox,
& Cox 1977; Roman & Haddad 1978; Waller stein &
Kelly 1980; Family Law Council 1992).
In spite of the relative inability of children
to articulate their feelings (at least compared to the average
adult), as noted earlier teir is increasing evidence that
children, when presented with the opportunity to do so, have
articulated their desire to maintain a loving, involved relationship
with both parents after divorce. This desire on the part of
children is understandable, given the evidence that children
form meaningful attachment bonds to both parents (Thompson
1983).
Wallerstein & Kelly (1980) in their well
known longitudinal study of 60 California families and 131
children aged two through eighteen found that preschoolers
feared being abandoned after their parents separation and
that children of all ages expressed verbally and behaviourally
a great sense of loss if one parent was absent. Among the
twenty-six seven and eight year old children studied, the
most pronounced reaction to the parental divorce was the sense
of loss suffered with regard to the departed father. The study
noted that the effects of being left almost exclusively in
the care of only one parent were negative. In other research
the authors recorded children's intense dissatisfaction with
the traditional two weekends contact per month, dictated by
the sole residence model, and their desire for more frequent
contact with their non-resident parents. Only the children
who could see their fathers several times a week were even
moderately content.
These feelings of loss have also been reported
in subsequent British studies (Lund 1984; Mitchell 1985).
Mitchell’s (1985) account of her interviews with 116
Scottish adolescents which were conducted five years after
separation, provides a moving record of the initial loneliness
and bewilderness of children that results from the inaccessibility
of one parent following separation (and sometimes in emotional
terms, both). The remarriage of one or the other parent constituted
a second crisis for some of the children in her sample because
it dispelled the last vestiges of hope (however unsubstantiated)
that their parents might eventually come back together again
– often the precondition children believed necessary
for recovering two parents. They emphasised again and again
their need to be kept informed about what was happening. Mitchell
argued that doctors, lawyers, teachers, and social workers
were important attendants upon the process of marriage breakdown
who therefore had a primary mental health care role to play
in the reconstruction of family life after divorce. The case
for educating professionals about the known effects of divorce
on children and their parents is well made by Mitchell and
other writers.
It is well documented that sole residence, which
has had a long trial period, leaves serious problems for children
and their parents (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox 1977; Roman
& Haddad 1978; Wallerstein & Kelly 1980). However,
there is empirical and clinical evidence that joint residence
encourages responsible behaviour and is psychologically sound
(Roman & Haddad 1978; Lentz 1982; Collar 1988; Sharply
& Webber 1992; Kruck 1993; Thompson 1994; Doll 1995; Farrell
2001; Bauserman 2002).
What seems to be clear is that the interests
of parents and children do not usually coincide when a marriage
breaks down. I have yet to read a study that concludes children
prefer their parents to go their separate ways than to stay
together––even when the domestic atmosphere is
tense. The work undertaken so far suggests that the ready
accessibility of the non–resident parent, is likely
to be of considerable value in assisting children come to
terms with the reality of their changed predicament and in
keeping both parents alive for them (Wallerstein & Kelly
1980; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox 1982; Hetherington &
Hagan 1985; Warshak 1986; 1992; Braver & O’Connell
1998).
In sum, the research suggests that the best
and perhaps only way to achieve true continuity of family
relationships is through the medium of joint residence that
aims to preserve the child's perception of both mother and
father as an integral part of his or her life, a positive
role model, and a continuing and consistent source of love,
security, respect, discipline, and exposure to a varied range
of life experiences (Roman & Haddad 1978; Coller 1988;
Farrell 2001).
Which ideas and research will the Government
prefer to use??
|
