The publication of 39 Principles regarding Parental Responsibilities,3 including the compilation of the comparative material,4 are the result of teamwork to which 26 legal experts from 22 European jurisdictions in the field of comparative family law have contributed. Each section containing a Principle consists of four parts. The text of the Principle itself5 is followed by an overview of the relevant international and/or European provisions regarding the issue addressed in the Principle in order to recall the international commitments that have previously been achieved. The international obligations built the framework along which the Principles have been drafted. The comparative overviews and the comments do not only refer to the 22 national reports by the CEFL experts, but include, in addition, the related international and/or European instruments. All four parts belong together.

Preamble

Chapter I: Definitions Chapter II: Rights of the child Chapter III: Parental responsibilities of parents and third persons Chapter IV: Exercise of parental responsibilities

Section A: Parents Section B: Third persons

Chapter V: Content of parental responsibilities

Section A: The child's person and property Section B: Maintenance of personal relationships

Chapter VI: Termination of parental responsibilities Chapter VII: Discharge and restoration of parental responsibilities Chapter VIII: Procedure

The table of contents indicates which issues are addressed. Essentially, a distinction is made between three different areas. Chapters I, II and VIII contain general rules. To these general rules belong four different parts: first, the Preamble, second, two Principles which define, first, the concept of parental responsibilities and, second, the holders of parental responsibilities. The choice for a broad concept of parental responsibilities necessitates indicating who can be attributed with parental responsibilities and can exercise the necessary rights and duties. CEFL's concept explicitly makes a distinction between parents and third persons. Primarily parents

3 BOELE-WOELKI, K./FERRAND, F./GONZÁLEZ BEILFUSS, C./JÄNTERÄ-JAREBORG, M./ LOWE, N./MARTINY, D./PINTENS, W., Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities, European Family Law Series no. 16 (2007).

4 BOELE-WOELKI, K./BRAAT, B./CURRY-SUMNER, I. (eds.), European Family Law in Action, Volume III: Parental Responsibilities, European Family Law Series no. 9 (2005).

5 Enclosed in the Appendix at the end of this contribution.

are in charge of exercising parental responsibilities. However, persons other than parents as well as public bodies can also have parental responsibilities. The relevant international and European human rights cinstruments have profoundly influenced Chap. 2 which is devoted to the rights of the child. With its five Principles this Chapter forms the main general part of the CEFL Principles. The rights of the child are always to be taken into account in all matters of parental responsibilities. They constitute the principal point of departure along which all other issues should be addressed. Also the procedural aspects are of a general nature. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 address three aspects: the position of parents and third persons, the exercise of parental responsibilities and their content. Chapters 6 and 7, finally, deal with the termination of parental responsibilities and being discharged therefrom.

#### 4.5 Concept of Parental Responsibilities

What are parental responsibilities and who are its holders? In accordance with international and European instruments the CEFL opted for a broad concept of parental responsibilities consisting of a collection of rights and duties that embody the concept of taking care of the child's person and property (Principle 3:1). Concepts like guardianship and custody that are still used in national systems have been abandoned. CEFL's concept of parental responsibilities applies to children from the moment of their birth until they have reached the age of majority. A difference between younger and adolescent children has been recognized, although the indication of an age limit has intentionally been avoided. It not only depends on the child's age but also upon his/her maturity whether his/her opinion should be taken into account.

The Principles refer to the rather long-winded term "holders of parental responsibilities". Normally, the child has two parents who are the holders of parental responsibilities. However, also a person other than a parent, who has no legal ties with the child, can be attributed with and exercise parental responsibilities. Principle 3:2 clarifies this distinction. Primarily, the parents, whose legal parentage has been established, are in charge of the exercise of parental responsibilities. However, physical persons other than the parents as well as public bodies can also have parental responsibilities. According to the CEFL Principles it is thus possible that there might be even more than two holders of parental responsibilities.

#### 4.6 Divorce and Separation

In the case of divorce or the separation of the parents they continue to hold parental responsibilities jointly. Principle 3:10 states that parental responsibilities should neither be affected by the dissolution or annulment of the marriage or other formal relationship nor by the legal or factual separation between the parents. Hence a divorce or separation has no influence on the attribution of parental responsibilities. The Principle is in accordance with the common core of the legal systems that were surveyed by the CEFL. Consequently, parents who have parental responsibilities should have a continuous equal right and duty to exercise such responsibilities jointly. Exceptions to the joint and equal exercise of parental responsibilities are however recognized because it is realized that parental responsibilities should be exercised by the parents together "whenever possible". This is expressed in Principle 3:11. The fact that parental responsibilities should be exercised jointly does not mean that parents must act together in all circumstances. This issue is further developed under Principle 3:12(1) which grants the authority to act alone in daily matters. However, Principle 3:12(2) requires that important decisions concerning matters such as education, medical treatment, the child's residence, or the administration of his or her property should be taken jointly. The Principle contains a non-exhaustive list which serves as an illustration. Not all matters in these areas require a joint decision; this is only so if the matter is important. The Principles do not provide a criterion in order to evaluate whether or not an issue is important. Decisions with a long-lasting effect for the child should, however, be considered as being important. For example, whereas authorizing a child to attend a language course will not be deemed to be an important decision on education requiring the consent of both parents, a change of school would probably be regarded as such. Much, however, depends on the circumstances of the case. Irrespective of whether a matter is to be considered important, a parent should have the right to act alone in urgent matters. In this case the other parent should be informed without undue delay (Principle 3:12 (2)).

Given the fact that the joint exercise of parental responsibilities becomes more complicated after divorce or the separation of the parents, they are encouraged to agree on how to arrange their rights and duties. Principle 3:13(1) lays down the generally acknowledged principle that the parents can make agreements concerning the exercise of parental responsibilities. This means that they may agree on several matters or on a specific issue. The scope of an agreement can cover all aspects of parental responsibilities listed in Principle 3:1, in particular care, protection and education. An agreement between the holders of parental responsibilities may also lead to the sole exercise of parental responsibilities by one of the parents according to Principle 3:15(a); however, both the agreement on joint exercise as well as on sole exercise are subject to the best interests of the child. As a result, the competent authority, usually a court, should scrutinize the agreement from this perspective.

In many cases, however, the parents disagree on their joint exercise of parental responsibilities. This situation has been addressed in Principle 3:14. In the case of a disagreement they may apply to the competent authority, but only if they cannot agree on an important matter, such as the child's residence or educational matters. If the competent authority is requested to decide the dispute, it should first attempt to attain an agreement between the parties. The competent authority can decide the dispute itself or it can authorize one of the parents to act alone with regard to one or more issues. The second alternative avoids any unnecessary intervention in family life. However, the practical result will often be the same, because deciding on the most competent parent will be difficult without taking into account the disputed issue itself. Therefore, Principle 3:14(3) leaves it open whether parental responsibilities may be exercised by one holder of parental responsibilities alone or the dispute itself may be decided by the competent authority. Authorizing one of the parents to act alone will be preferable where it can be established that a specific, separable issue must be resolved and one of the holders of parental responsibilities has a sufficient degree of competence or knowledge to pursue the best interests of the child concerning this question. In any case the competent authority must observe the principle of the best interests of the child and also has to take into account the former practice of the parents.

The majority of the Principles which belong to Chap. 4 on the exercise of parental responsibilities are based on the common core which can be found in both the national systems and the international and European instruments. These general rules to be applied were selected as the best solutions. In respect of a few, but important, aspects it was not possible to discover a common approach. Regarding these aspects, a solution was selected which is applied in only a few countries. They are practicable and in line with CEFL's objectives in creating a flexible and efficient system which is also based on equality. This applies to the power of the parents having joint parental responsibilities to act alone in daily matters (Principles 3:12 (1)), the obligation of the parent who acted in urgent cases to inform the other parent without undue delay (Principles 3:12(2)), the competence of the competent authority to decide on a dispute or to authorize one of the parents having joint parental responsibilities in case of a disagreement between them (Principles 3:14(3)), the exercise of parental responsibilities by one parent if both parents have made an agreement to that end (Principle 3(15)) and the recognition that parental responsibilities may be exercised by third persons in addition to or instead of the parents (Principle 3:17). Hence, in respect of these issues the CEFL applied the better law approach in order to establish a coherent regulatory scheme.

#### 4.7 Maintenance of Personal Relationships, Residence of the Child and Relocation

The maintenance of personal relationships between the child and his or her parents forms a part of parental responsibilities. Such a maintenance of personal relationships is established by contact. Principle 3:25 prefers contact to "access" because this term is broader and better expresses the bilateral nature of personal relationships. Because the maintenance of personal relationships exists mainly in the child's interests, the child should have his or her own right of contact whereas the parents should have a right and a corresponding duty. Principle 3:25(1) therefore expressly establishes that contact is a right and it implicitly declares that it is also a duty for the parents.

Principle 3:25(2) states that a child should also have a right of contact with relatives other than his or her parents. This includes mainly his or her grandparents. In these cases, there exist close family ties and grandparents can fulfil an important role for the development of the child. Grandparents are not expressly mentioned despite the fact that they enjoy a privileged status according to many family systems. Also with siblings, personal relationships should be maintained. However, Principle 3:25(2) does not establish a list of such relatives. This is in accordance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on Contact Concerning Children 2003. This right to contact should exist even against the will of the parent(s). The child's right to maintain relationships with persons other than a parent does create an obligation for parents to enable and support such contact. The question of whether these persons have an actionable right allowing them to have contact even in opposition to the wishes of the parents has not been dealt with in the CEFL Principles. There are good reasons for not enforcing such contact if it seriously disturbs the parent-child relationship. This is recognized by some national systems which do not grant such a right to persons other than parents or which allow more restrictions on this right than they do when the issue at stake is contact between the child and a parent.

Principle 3:25(3) recognizes also that with third persons who are not relatives, close ties can exist. This group embraces a great variety of persons (step-parents, foster parents). Particularly when these persons have fulfilled social family functions, the maintenance of personal relationships is appropriate and generally in the best interests of the child. However, Principle 3:25(3) only states that there "may" be contact; there is no automatic maintenance of personal relations. Since the factual circumstances and the degree of closeness may differ greatly, in these cases there should only be a right for these persons but not an obligation.

Two issues deserve special attention when the parents divorce or separate. Where will the residence of the child be and under which circumstances should it be possible to relocate to a different place or country? In many national systems, the determination of the child's residence is not a separate issue. The child's residence falls under the exception that no common core could be found. The lack of a common core regarding this aspect is due to the fact that, on the one hand, we are witnessing a greater mobility of persons not only within Europe but all around the globe, and, on the other hand, that joint parental responsibilities increasingly lead to equal parenting which eventually results in an alternating residence for the child. These developments are new and are approached differently in the systems surveyed. Legislation is exceptional and judicial decisions differ to a great extent. In this area, the CEFL Principles provide new solutions which to a certain extent are based on the legal practice of some countries. These solutions may function as guidelines not only for legislatures but primarily for the courts and other administrative bodies which are requested to decide on disputes concerning the child's residence.

In accordance with CEFL's approach the decision with whom the child should reside is left to the parents. Principle 3:20(1) recalls that any determination of the child's residence requires the parents to reach an agreement to this effect if they cease to live together. This is consistent with Principle 3:10 which establishes that parental responsibilities are as such unaffected by the fact that the parents divorce or separate. If they fail to agree on the child's residence, the matter will be deferred to the competent authority which will proceed according to Principle 3:14.

At the time the CEFL Principles regarding Parental Responsibilities were drafted, none of the jurisdictions surveyed had legislated the concept of shared or alternating residence which entails that the child lives with both parents on an alternate basis for a specific period of time.6 Other terms that are commonly used to indicate this situation are: joint custody, joint parental responsibility, shared care, shared parenting, co-parenting and residential co-parenting. It started some 20 years ago. Ex-partners who had a very co-operative relationship with each other shared the daily care of the child due to flexible work times and the geographical proximity of their residences. However, when fathers (and fathers' rights organizations) were starting to see alternating residence less as an alternative way of arranging postseparation care, and more as an equality issue, the call for more arrangements regarding alternative residence, even in less appropriate situations, increased.7 Principle 3:20(2) deals with alternating residence. Whether an alternating residence should be the rule or an exception is not decided by Principle 3:20(2). It merely establishes that an alternating residence should be possible if this is agreed upon by the holders of parental responsibilities and the competent authority approves such an agreement. The criteria which should be considered by the competent authority are factors such as (a) the age and opinion of the child; (b) the ability and willingness of the parents to cooperate with each other in matters concerning the child as well as their personal situation and (c) the distance between the residences of the parents and to the child's school. Principle 3:20(2) also contemplates the possibility that an alternating residence will be decided upon by the competent authority failing an agreement by the holders of parental responsibilities, if this is considered to be in the child's best interests taking into account the factors mentioned under Principle 3:20 (2). Since the ability and willingness of the holders of parental responsibilities is one of the criteria mentioned, an alternating residence should only be ordered by the competent authority failing an agreement in exceptional cases. Undoubtedly, an alternating residence should only be possible if it is in the best interests of the child. The list of factors provides guidelines for scrutinizing any agreement on an alternating residence for the child between the parents. It is also useful when there is no such agreement, but the competent authority is considering whether to decide on an alternating residence. The factors listed reflect the CEFL's concern that notwithstanding the fact that an alternating residence may promote personal relationships with both parents, it may also deprive the child of a stable environment and thus be

6 NIKOLINA, Divided Parents – Shared Children, Legal Aspects of (Residential) Co-Parenting in England, the Netherlands and Belgium, European Family Law series no. 39, Intersentia 2015.

7 ANTOKOLSKAIA, Solomo's oordeel nieuwe stijl: verblijfsco-ouderschap in België en Nederland. Over de rol van de wetenschap, invloed van de politiek, en nattevingerwerk in het wetgevingsproces, Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van de Marcel Storme leerstoel te Universiteit Gent op 12 mei 2010, p. 7.

harmful for the child. Each case is different. The final decision is to be taken by the competent authority.

Another issue that at the time of the drafting of the CEFL Principles regarding Parental Responsibilities was not statutorily regulated in any family law system of the jurisdictions surveyed by the CEFL concerns the wish of one of the parents to change the child's residence within or outside the jurisdiction. The CEFL decided to introduce a Principle specifically dealing with relocation in order to respond to an ever-increasing mobility in European society which is closely linked to EU citizenship. Relocation is emerging as an important issue in the context of European integration and the free movement of persons and is likely to lead to many disputes. Changing the child's residence within or outside the jurisdiction is such an important matter that it requires the other parent to be informed in advance. Since the determination of the child's residence is considered to be an important matter requiring that parents should act in agreement, the duty to inform is in fact implicit when parental responsibilities are held jointly by the parents. Principle 3:21(2) partially recalls Principle 3:14. When there is no agreement on relocation, the matter must be deferred to the competent authority. Principle 3:21(3) contains a non-exhaustive list of factors which have to be taken into consideration by the competent authority in order to take a decision on relocation. This decision requires that the competent authority tries to find a balance between the right of the child to maintain personal relationships with the non-residential parent and close relatives and persons with whom the child has a close relationship (Principle 3:25) and the right of the residential parent to move in pursuit of a valid purpose, in order to, for example, improve his or her professional situation or to accompany a new partner (free movement rights). Geographical distance and accessibility as well as the personal, particularly the financial, situation of the holders of parental responsibilities are crucial factors. As always, due weight should be given to the child's opinion, having regard to his or her age and maturity.

#### 4.8 Procedural Issues

All five Principles in the Chapter on Procedure are based on the common core. These concern the following issues: It is generally acknowledged and practised that in deciding on or intervening in matters of parental responsibilities the situation of the child should be investigated. To that end, the competent authority should, where necessary, appoint any suitable person or body in order to obtain a clear view of the child's situation. In addition to this more traditional approach the increasing importance of alternative dispute resolution, which is being recognized by all national laws, is acknowledged by the Principles. Also in this field the common core is apparent. Consequently, in all disputes regarding parental responsibilities alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should be available (Principle 3:36). Principle 3:37 (1) stresses that the child should be heard in the context of proceedings that affect him or her. It is recognized, however, that there are situations where such a hearing could result in more harm than good. If the authority decides not to hear the child it should give specific reasons for this. In this respect a common core is not available and therefore the best solution was selected instead. There is no uniform approach in the national systems as to whether the hearing of the child should take place directly before the competent authority or indirectly before a person or body appointed by the competent authority. The Principles prefer a direct hearing; the court should use the knowledge of experts but should form its own impression.  No specific age limit is given. It is the common core of the majority of the jurisdictions represented in the CEFL that the child should have a special representative appointed in all cases in which the child's interest could be in conflict with those of the holders of PR or in which the welfare of the child is otherwise at risk. This guarantee is provided in Principle 3:38. The appointment of a special representative should take place ex officio by an order of the competent authority or may be requested by the child subject to the condition that he or she has sufficient understanding. Finally, the principle of the expeditious and effective enforcement of a decision by the competent authority or an agreement concerning parental responsibilities is approved in Principle 3:39. This is the main rule. Exceptionally, the enforcement may not take place if it is obviously irreconcilable with the child's best interests. Consequently, and subject to the condition that the child has sufficient understanding, a residence or contact order, for instance, should not be enforced against the wishes of the child.

#### 4.9 Impact of the CEFL Principles

By and large, the Parental Responsibilities Principles form a frame of reference which is useful for any legislator. Comparative research has been carried out in the respective field, the material is easily accessible and widely disseminated, similarities and differences are determined, explanations are provided and, finally, while evaluating the solutions common Principles are proposed. They are based on the comparative findings. CEFL's final goal will have been achieved if in the end the final result will acquire a decent standing within the plethora of international and European instruments addressing the parent-child relationship. Additionally, by the empirical testing of the Principles in a number of legal systems one can demonstrate whether they are indeed acceptable and/or are regarded as an improvement on existing national laws. This has been done by Esin Örücü and Jane Mair in respect of the Principles discussed in this contribution.8 Finally, to date the CEFL Principles regarding Parental Responsibilities inspired the Portuguese (Lei do divórcio 2008), Norwegian (Children Act 2010), Croatian (Family Law Act 2013) and Czech (2014)

8 ÖRÜCÜ, E./MAIR, J. (eds), Juxtaposing Legal Systems and the Principles of European Family Law on Parental Responsibilities, European Family Law Series no. 27, 2010.

legislators in reforming the law of divorce and parental responsibilities respectively. More references to the CEFL Principles are to be expected. Recently, the Estonian legislator has been provided with information about CEFL's Principle on alternating residence, however, only after the general elections there in March 2019 the legislative process will be resumed.

Further research might include more extensive comparisons between national provisions on parental responsibilities which are not represented in CEFL's comparative material and the CEFL Model. Since the latter have only partially been incorporated into the law of a few national jurisdiction, it is not possible to test them as a whole from, for example, a social science perspective. The CEFL Principles as such are black letter rules belonging to the law in the books, whereas national parental responsibilities rules are applied in practice. In respect of these rules, qualitative and/or quantitative research can be undertaken, which might reveal that the law is in accordance with the needs of parents and their children, or that the law should be changed. When the latter is the case, the CEFL Principles might provide a better solution than the national system. For example, regarding the issue of the alternating residence of the child after divorce, or that of the relocation of the child, many national systems have not yet provided any legislative guidelines. It will depend on the courts how each individual case will be decided. This creates uncertainty and inequality. In its Explanatory Memorandum on the Recommendation of 2015 on Preventing and Resolving Disputes on Child Relocation, the Council of Europe has acknowledged this lack of guidance. It rightly refers to the CEFL Principle 3:21 in this respect. As stated in the introduction to this contribution, legislative measures will not be taken by the European Commission, since it lacks competence in the field of substantive family law.

Acknowledgement This chapter benefited from the support of the Centre for Population, Family and Health (CPFH) at the University of Antwerp which enabled Open Access.

#### Appendix: Principles of European Family Law Regarding Parental Responsibilities

#### Preamble

Recognising that, notwithstanding the existing diversities of national family law systems, there is nevertheless a growing convergence of laws;

Recognising that the free movement of persons within Europe is hindered by the remaining differences;

Desiring to contribute to common European values regarding the child's rights and welfare;

Desiring to contribute to the harmonisation of family law in Europe and to further facilitate the free movement of persons within Europe;

The Commission on European Family Law recommends the following Principles:

#### Chapter I: Definitions

Principle 3:1 Concept of Parental Responsibilities

Parental responsibilities are a collection of rights and duties aimed at promoting and safeguarding the welfare of the child. They encompass in particular:

Principle 3:2 Holder of Parental Responsibilities

	- (a) the child's parents, as well as
	- (b) persons other than the child's parents having parental responsibilities in addition to or instead of the parents.

#### Chapter II: Rights of the Child

Principle 3:3 Best Interests of the Child

In all matters concerning parental responsibilities the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration.

Principle 3:4 Autonomy of the Child

The child's autonomy should be respected in accordance with the developing ability and need of the child to act independently.

Principle 3:5 Non-discrimination of the Child

Children should not be discriminated on grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, sexual orientation, disability, property, birth or other status, irrespective of whether these grounds refer to the child or to the holders of parental responsibilities.

Principle 3:6 Child's Right to Be Heard

Having regard to the child's age and maturity, the child should have the right to be informed, consulted and to express his or her opinion in all matters concerning the child, with due weight given to the views expressed by him or her.

Principle 3:7 Conflict of Interests

The interests of the child should be protected whenever they may be in conflict with the interests of the holders of parental responsibilities.

#### Chapter III: Parental Responsibilities of Parents and Third Persons

Principle 3:8 Parents

Parents, whose legal parentage has been established, should have parental responsibilities for the child.

Principle 3:9 Third Persons

Parental responsibilities may in whole or in part also be attributed to a person other than a parent.

Principle 3:10 Effect of Dissolution and Separation

Parental responsibilities should neither be affected by the dissolution or annulment of the marriage or other formal relationship nor by the legal or factual separation between the parents.

#### Chapter IV: Exercise of Parental Responsibilities

SECTION A: PARENTS

Principle 3:11 Joint Exercise

Parents having parental responsibilities should have an equal right and duty to exercise such responsibilities and whenever possible they should exercise them jointly.

Principle 3:12 Daily Matters, Important and Urgent Decisions

Principle 3:13 Agreement on Exercise

Principle 3:14 Disagreement on Exercise

Principle 3:15 Sole Exercise upon Agreement or Decision

Subject to the best interests of the child a parent may exercise parental responsibilities alone.

Principle 3:16 Sole Exercise by One Parent

If only one parent has parental responsibilities he or she should exercise them alone. SECTION B: THIRD PERSONS

Principle 3:17 Exercise in Addition to or Instead of the Parents

A person other than a parent may exercise some or all parental responsibilities in addition to or instead of the parents.

Principle 3:18 Decisions in Daily Matters

The parent's partner living with the child may take part in decisions with respect to daily matters unless the other parent having parental responsibilities objects.

#### Chapter V: Content of Parental Responsibilities

Section A: The CHILD'S Person and Property

Principle 3:19 Care, Protection and Education

Principle 3:20 Residence

	- (a) the age and opinion of the child;
	- (b) the ability and willingness of the holders of parental responsibilities to

cooperate with each other in matters concerning the child, as well as their personal situation;

(c) the distance between the residences of the holders of the parental responsibilities and to the child's school.

#### Principle 3:21 Relocation

	- (a) the age and opinion of the child;
	- (b) the right of the child to maintain personal relationships with the other holders of parental responsibilities;
	- (c) the ability and willingness of the holders of parental responsibilities to cooperate with each other;
	- (d) the personal situation of the holders of personal responsibilities;
	- (e) the geographical distance and accessibility;
	- (f) the free movement of persons.

Principle 3:22 Administration of the child's Property

Principle 3:23 Restrictions

(1) The holders of parental responsibilities should not administer property acquired by a child through a testamentary disposition or a gift, if the testator or the donor so instructed.

#### Principle 3:24 Legal Representation

#### SECTION B: MAINTENANCE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Principle 3:25 Contact with Parents and Other Persons

#### Principle 3:26 Content of Contact

Principle 3:27 Agreement

Principle 3:28 Restrictions

Contact may be restricted, terminated or made subject to conditions by the competent authority if the best interests of the child so require.

Principle 3:29 Information to Parents

A parent should have the right to be informed about matters concerning the personal situation of the child.

#### Chapter VI: Termination of Parental Responsibilities

Principle 3:30 Termination

	- (a) reaching majority;
	- (b) entering into a marriage or registered partnership;
	- (c) being adopted;
	- (d) dying.

Principle 3:31 Death of the Parents

#### Chapter VII: Discharge and Restoration of Parental Responsibilities

Principle 3:32 Discharge of Parental Responsibilities

The competent authority should discharge the holder of parental responsibilities, wholly or in part, where his or her behaviour or neglect causes a serious risk to the person or the property of the child.

Principle 3:33 Request for Discharge of Parental Responsibilities

	- (a) any parent having parental responsibilities;
	- (b) the child, and.
	- (c) any institution protecting the interests of the child.

Principle 3:34 Restoration of Parental Responsibilities

Having regard to the best interests of the child, the competent authority may restore parental responsibilities if the circumstances that led to the discharge no longer exist.

#### Chapter VIII: Procedure

Principle 3:35 Competent Authority

Principle 3:36 Alternative Dispute Resolution

In all disputes regarding parental responsibilities alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should be available.

Principle 3:37 Hearing of the Child

#### Principle 3:38 Appointment of a Special Representative for the Child

In proceedings concerning parental responsibilities in which there could either be a serious conflict of interests between the child and the holders of parental responsibilities or in which the welfare of the child is otherwise at risk, the competent authority should appoint a special representative for the child.

#### Principle 3:39 Enforcement

Katharina Boele-Woelki is President of Bucerius Law School, the first private law school in Germany, where she also serves as the Claussen Simon Foundation Professor of Comparative Law. Until September 2015, she was Professor of Private International Law, Comparative Law and Family Law at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. In 2017 she has been appointed Extraordinary Professor at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. She established the Commission on European Family Law (CEFL) and the Utrecht Centre for European Research into Family Law (UCERF). She is president of the International Academy of Comparative Law, member of the Curatorium of The Hague Academy for International Law and was awarded honorary doctorates from Uppsala University, the University of Lausanne and the University of Antwerp, as well as the Anneliese Maier-Forschungspreis from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. She is an elected member of the Akademie der Wissenschaften in Hamburg.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Part II Parents and Shared Physical Custody

## Chapter 5 Are "Part-Time Parents" Healthier and Happier Parents? Correlates of Shared Physical Custody in Switzerland

#### Claudia Recksiedler and Laura Bernardi

Abstract Changing legal and parental practices across Europe led to a higher share of parents practicing shared physical custody (SPC) upon separation, who tended to be more affluent and less conflict-ridden. Since SPC became more prevalent, profiles of SPC parents pluralized. Far from these developments, no clearly defined legal pathways toward SPC existed in Switzerland before 2017. Profiling the Swiss case, we examine the prevalence of SPC families, and its associations with parental health and well-being before these legislative changes. Among 875 separated parents of 1,269 minors, SPC (i.e., child alternates between parental homes at least 30% of the time) was practiced by about 11% of the sample. A higher share of SPC parents was highly-educated, yet more financially strained compared to other parents. Although no overall differences in health and well-being emerged between SPC and other separated parents (e.g., with sole custody), SPC-health-linkages varied by gender and education. We conclude that lacking institutional support for SPC and genderbiased employment practices reinforce traditional custody models. Because of costly childcare and more skewed time splits among Swiss SPC parents, SPC may represent more of a resource drain—at least economically—than a relief for the parent shouldering more care duties and expenses.

Keywords Shared care · Parental well-being · Health disparities · Switzerland

C. Recksiedler (\*)

German Youth Institute, Munich, Germany e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
L. Bernardi

LIVES Centre, Swiss Centre of Expertise in Life Course Research and Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### 5.1 Introduction and Study Aims

The landscape of family forms and living arrangements with and without children is changing rapidly in Switzerland similar to the trends in many other Western nations (Bernardi et al. 2018; Sánchez Gassen and Perelli-Harris 2015; Goldschneider et al. 2015). Steady increases in divorce rates and non-marital childbirth across many European countries have, among other reasons, led to growing numbers of lone parents and blended families. For example, crude divorce rates have more than doubled in Switzerland and Belgium from 0.9 and 0.5 per 1,000 inhabitants in 1960 to 2.0 and 2.1 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2016, respectively (Eurostat 2018). Due to the growing numbers of lone parents and blended families, minors are at a higher risk of growing up without the presence of both biological parents in one household (Sobotka and Toulemon 2008; Smyth and Moloney 2008). Even though children are still more likely to stay with their mothers after a separation, changes in legal and cultural practices across Europe have led to a higher share of parents who opt for shared physical custody (hereafter, 'SPC'; Cancian et al. 2014; Juby et al. 2005; Kitterød and Lyngstad 2012). SPC is hereby defined as a post-separation custody arrangement where children spend time at two alternating places of residence—one at each of the parents' homes—and parents are able share daily responsibilities and routines compared to other non-residential parents with sparse contact to their children (i.e., no physical custody; hereafter, 'NC'). How SPC parents decide to split children's time between the two households, however, can vary widely from equal amounts of time (50%:50%) to up to at least one-quarter of time (75%:25%) across families and legislative contexts (Baude et al. 2016; Meyer et al. 2017).

Prior studies documented that the low prevalence of SPC families meant higher levels of selectivity. Children in SPC families tended to have parents with higher levels of education, higher income, and lower reported levels of relationship conflict compared to children in more traditional sole (physical) custody (hereafter, 'SC') arrangements (Bauserman 2012; Nielsen 2018; Steinbach 2019). In countries where SPC was legally regulated, either as default or as the priority custody arrangement, such as many of the Nordic countries, the share of SPC increased. Consequently, profiles of SPC families became less selective, at least in terms of parental education and income (Cancian et al. 2014). Far from these developments, in Switzerland, clearly defined legal regulations for SPC were lacking until 2017. Although separation and divorce among Swiss parents is rising at a similar rate to other Western countries, no prior study has yet examined the spread and profiles of families practicing novel post-separation custody arrangements, such as SPC, in the Swiss context to our knowledge. In addition, while the majority of research on correlates and consequences of SPC has so far focused on children's adjustment to SPC, little research has devoted attention to the correlation of SPC arrangements with parental health. This is all the more surprising given that previous studies established a reciprocal dependence of union separation, family structure, parenting, and parental health across the life course more generally (Amato 2010; Osborne et al. 2012; Umberson et al. 2010). To fill these research gaps, the aim of this chapter is twofold. First, we aim at providing a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and characteristics of SPC families in Switzerland before the legislative change of 2017. Second, we examine whether SPC is associated with Swiss parents' physical health and well-being.

#### 5.1.1 Spread and Characteristics of SPC Families

More involved and active fathering has been on the political agenda of many Western countries with the introduction of more gender-neutral family polices particularly in the Scandinavian countries—and a societal re-definition of manhood that encourages men to engage in multiple social roles besides the traditional breadwinner role (Goldschneider et al. 2015). For example, legal changes facilitating the establishment of longer parental and paternal leave were introduced in many European countries (Thévenon 2011), which may have contributed to the substantial daily time increase coupled fathers reported to spend with their children over the last decade (e.g., 57% increase in time spent with children from 2001/2002 to 2012/2013 among German men; Klünder and Meier-Gräwe 2018). The majority of fathers also wish to continue their engagement with their biological (or step-) children upon the separation from a former partner or spouse indicating shifting social norms related to parenting and fatherhood that may consequently impact changes on the social policy-level (Bengtson and Allen 2009). However, the implementation of postseparation legislation that fosters father involvement in custody arrangements, such as SPC, varies considerably across Europe. Note that, throughout the chapter, SPC and other custody arrangements are referring to decisions concerning children's living arrangements only (e.g. SPC, SC) and not to legal custody, which defines which parent can make decisions about a child's life such as schooling, religious upbringing, or medical care.

In countries where SPC was introduced as the legally preferred solution for married couples seeking divorce or separation early-on (e.g., 1998 in Sweden and 2006 in Belgium), incident rates of parents utilizing shared-time custody models have risen to nearly 50% in Sweden (Bergström et al. 2013) and 37% in Belgium (Vanassche et al. 2017). In contrast, countries without a clear legal framework for SPC, such as in Germany, only about 5% of post-separation families reported to practice SPC (Walper 2016). Changes can also occur rather rapidly. In Spain, where similar legal changes happened in 2010, SPC almost tripled in just the space of a few years but with considerable regional variation in rates of SPC (ranging from 13% to up to 32% in some regions in 2013; Steinbach 2019). Studies have shown that at the initial stage of SPC diffusion, separated parents opting for this custody arrangement, tended to be more affluent, highly educated, practiced greater gender role equality, and reported lower levels of marital or post-separation conflict compared to ex-couples with SC arrangements (e.g., Bauserman 2012; Juby et al. 2005; Kitterød and Lyngstad 2012; Nielsen 2018; Schier and Hubert 2015). Since SPC arrangements became more common after strengthening the legal pathways toward SPC, however, profiles of SPC parents pluralized as well (Cancian et al. 2014; Sodermans et al. 2013). Even though the share of high-conflict and average to low educated SPC couples increased in response to the legal changes, the prevalence among the lowest educational groups—particularly families with two lower-educated parents remained relatively low. Reasons for this development are most likely the financial means necessary for practicing SPC, such as maintaining two rooms for a child, or coordinating commutes between parental residences, which limit the feasibility of SPC particularly for less resourceful parents (Melli and Brown 2008; Steinbach 2019). Furthermore, parents' ability to find non-conflictual custody agreements that are beneficial and acceptable for all parties involved, or to seek help to negotiate respective solutions (e.g., with a counsellor), may also be strongly correlated with one's educational attainment.

In Switzerland, similarly to Germany, no explicit legal framework for SPC was available before 2017 and SPC arrangements could only be formalized if both parents demanded and agreed to it. Only since 2014, the Swiss Family law no longer differentiates between children born to married and non-marital unions with regard to parental responsibilities and duties, which particularly strengthened the rights of post-separation fathers to a child born out of wedlock upon separation. Nevertheless, judges were only advised to investigate the possibility of SPC routinely regardless of parents' demands or disagreements since 2017. Additionally, gender-biased employment practices in the labor market and the lack of widespread, affordable childcare, despite some institutional efforts to promote gender equality at the policy level, encourage Swiss women to reduce their time in paid labor once they became mothers (Le Goff et al. 2009). It is important to note, however, that rates of childcare coverage vary across Switzerland's multilingual cantons with higher coverage in French-speaking cantons and urban centers (Bonoli 2008). Working part-time, and often in lower-paying, less career-oriented jobs has, in turn, shown to contribute to the emergence of more traditional role distributions among Swiss couples prior and after a separation (Bernardi et al. 2013; Bühlmann et al. 2009; Le Goff et al. 2009). The lack of explicit family policies to support women's full-time engagement in the workforce may further reinforce the establishment of (female-headed) SC arrangements upon separation (Davis and Greenstein 2009; Juby et al. 2005), despite recent advances in fostering legal pathways toward SPC.

Examining the Swiss case more closely—a late and only partial adopter of gender-neutral parenting policies—our study is the first attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence of families who opted into SPC before the 2014 and 2017 legislative change, as well as to describe the sociodemographic make-up of those families. We expect SPC arrangements to represent a small proportion of custody arrangements among separated parents because of Switzerland's lack of legal guidance at the time of data collection. Relatedly, we expect that SPC parents are rather selective in terms of education and socioeconomic standing (SES) compared to parents with NC, SC, or visitation rights only (hereafter, 'VR'; Hypothesis 1).

#### 5.1.2 SPC and Parents' Health

Prior research on SPC has largely focused on child adjustment, such as the perceived stress or emotional well-being of SPC children compared to their peers in SC arrangements or those growing up with both parents in one household (e.g., Bergström et al. 2013; Baude et al. 2016; Nielsen 2018; Turunen 2017). Going through a divorce or separation has shown to have—at least temporarily—detrimental effects on the physical health and mental well-being of former spouses or partners due to the expose to multiple stressors, such as shouldering sole parenting responsibilities, losing of emotional support, being exposed to continuing relational conflict, or experiencing economic decline (Amato 2010; Cooper et al. 2009; Osborne et al. 2012). Changing social roles of and relationships between the linked lives of family members need to be re-assigned and re-negotiated in response to such an impactful life event, which may have lasting ripple effects on parents' subsequent life course (Bengtson and Allen 2009). Even though parenting stress has generally shown to weigh on parents' well-being—at least when children are young—separated families may be particularly prone to the negative impact of parenting stress because they encounter more life strains related to parenting duties (e.g., through potentially stressful, yet constant consultation and negotiation with the former partner or spouse; Umberson et al. 2010). Findings further suggest that well-being and health penalties for parents having gone through union dissolution and potentially re-formation, such as lone parents, were substantially larger in countries with less generous policy support for families and lower levels of gender equality (Burstrom et al. 2010; Hübgen 2018; Pollmann-Schult 2018).

Despite the well-established linkages between family structure, parenting, and health, the associations between SPC and parental outcomes have rarely been examined. Apart from potential selectivity effects into SPC after a separation, splitting parenting duties may enable both parents, and particularly fathers, to enjoy time with their children and maintain supportive and positives ties to them—particularly father-child contact—which, in turn, could foster parents' health and well-being (Baranowska-Rataj et al. 2014; Steinbach 2019; Vogt Yuan 2016). SPC parents may further benefit from having more time for activities unrelated to parenting, such as work, dating, or leisure activities, which may decrease parenting stress for both mothers and fathers compared to lone parents. On the flip side, SPC may also increase parenting stress and therefore curb parental health and wellbeing—especially for those with sparse resources to fall back on or for conflictual couples—because practicing SPC is rather costly compared to traditional SC arrangements (e.g., paying for commutes between parental homes and maintaining the child's rooms in each of these home or duplicate sets of cloth, school supplies, etc.), and requires constant communication with the ex-spouse or partner. These additional burdens may outweigh potential benefits from reduced parenting duties. For example, the challenges of negotiating parenting roles and responsibilities in complex family configurations with residential stepchildren, whether they reside in the household full- or part-time, have shown to weigh particularly on stepmothers' perceived parenting stress (Guzzo et al. 2019). Yet the role strain of separated fathers has also shown to be higher compared to married fathers (Umberson and Williams 1993), even though fathers' psychological distress generally seemed to be diminished by higher-quality father-child contact after a separation (Vogt Yuan 2016).

In a review of 50 empirical studies primarily based on data from the 1980s to 1990s, Bauserman (2012) found that only SPC fathers were more satisfied with custody arrangements compared to SC parents. SPC mothers experienced less parenting burden and stress and both, SPC fathers and mothers, reported more emotional support and less conflict in their relationship with their former partners or spouses. Recent studies also found that SPC mothers had a more active social life, more time for leisure activities, and better employment opportunities compared to lone mothers (Bonnet et al. 2018; van der Heijden et al. 2015; Schnor et al. 2017; Steinbach 2019; Vanassche et al. 2017), presumably because of the freed time and resources due to sharing parenting responsibilities. Whereas reduced time pressure that allows for participation in gainful employment and networking seems to be the main benefit of SPC for mothers, SPC fathers experienced higher levels of time pressure compared to nonresidential fathers among a sample of Dutch divorced or separated parents (Van der Heijden et al. 2016). Findings on the overall psychological adjustment and health of SPC parents compared to SC parents, however, are inconsistent. Melli and Brown (2008) reported that, among a sample of U.S. divorced mothers and fathers, SPC parents were better off in terms of their physical and psychological health compared to SC parents. Other studies using data from Belgium and the Netherlands, however, did not find a direct association between SPC and parents' well-being (Sodermans et al. 2015; Spruijt and Duindam 2009). Potential reasons for these surprising null effects—particularly given the highly selective nature of SPC parents' characteristics—could be related to the gap between official arrangements (legal and declared) and daily practices. Some research showed that rather unequal time splits are often common practice in SPC arrangements, which still leave one parent shouldering the majority of childcare costs and responsibilities.

To address inconsistencies in prior findings, we further examine the association between SPC and parents' well-being and physical health, as well as potential variations in these links by gender and educational attainment. Overall, we expect that SPC parents report better health and well-being than lone parents, who generally tend to suffer from poorer health and well-being outcomes compared to their partnered peers and particularly in less generous and more gender-biased family policy regimes such as Switzerland (Hypothesis 2). However, we also expect mothers' health and well-being to benefit more from SPC compared to fathers because mothers, as traditional caregivers, stand more to gain from stronger father involvement in care duties in terms of freed up resources for employment and leisure time (Hypothesis 2a). Lastly, we expect SPC parents with higher levels of education attainment to report better health and well-being compared to their lower-educated peers because, in addition to being more likely to opt for SPC, higher-educated parents may have the sufficient resources and problem-solving skills to implement SPC successfully, particularly with limited institutional support for SPC, and can benefit from it subsequently (Hypothesis 2b).

#### 5.2 Method

#### 5.2.1 Data

Data were drawn from the cross-sectional Families and Generations Survey (FGS) conducted by the Swiss Federal Office of Statistics in 2013 (N ¼ 17,298; 53% females), which collected information on respondents' current household composition, employment and partnership characteristics, fertility, and well-being. In addition, the FGS includes retrospective information on the respondents' union and fertility histories. The survey randomly sampled permanent Swiss residents aged 15 to 80 years. Survey interviews were conducted in one of the three official languages, depending on the respondents' preferences (German, French, and Italian), during computer assisted telephone interviews and via complementary online or paper questionnaires. Retention rate was 50% and 82% of the sample were Swiss nationals.

For the purpose of this study, we drew a subsample of respondents with at least one biological child aged 18 years or younger (N ¼ 5,002), where both biological parents were not living in the same household at the time of data collection. Note that the parent that took part in the survey also provided basic socio-demographic information (e.g., sex and educational attainment) about the other biological parent of their child, but that this parent was not contacted to participate in the survey as well. Thus, the sample consisted of full-time residential parents with children in their household (i.e., lone parents), non-residential parents with children outside of the household providing information about their children and the parent taking care of them, and parents splitting parenting duties with children alternating between the parental residences. The final analytic sample consisted of 875 post-separation parents (59.8% females; M age (SD) ¼ 43.90 (7.69)) of 1,269 minors (49.2% females; M age (SD) ¼ 12.12 (4.59)).

#### 5.2.2 Measures

SPC, again referring to children's living arrangements and not legal custody, was assessed with two questions asking whether another parent takes care of the child on a regular basis (0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes), and if so, for how many days per month (M (SD) ¼ 8.52 (5.44)). Based on this information, we differentiated four custody arrangements: no custody (i.e., non-residential parents; 'NC'; 0 days), sole custody (i.e., full-time residential parents; 'SC'; 0 days), visitation rights ('VR'; 1–9 days per month), and shared physical custody ('SPC'; for at least 30% of the time, i.e., 10 days or more per months). We chose a 70%:30% time split, rather than equal time splits, as the cut-off criteria to be classified as SPC because of the left-skewed distribution of the time spent in the other parents' household.

We measured respondents' own overall evaluation of their physical health, which is a commonly used and validated single-item health indicator (Idler and Benyamini 1997), by asking: "In general, would you say your health is ...?" on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Emotional well-being was measured with a shortened version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al. 1988). Participants were asked to rate how often they generally felt the following emotions on a scale from 1 (never) to 6 (always): happy, tired, lonely, energetic, sad, and nervous. Items were recoded so that higher values indicate higher levels of emotional wellbeing and a mean composite score was formed (Cronbach's α ¼ 0.73).

Lastly, information about respondents' sex (0 ¼ female; 1 ¼ male), age (in full years), mother's and father's educational attainment (1 ¼ primary [basic schooling]; 2 ¼ secondary [vocational training]; 3 ¼ tertiary [advanced vocational training or university degree]), children's age (in full years), respondents' employment status (0 ¼ unemployed; 1 ¼ employed), perceived economic difficulties (0 ¼ no; 1 ¼ yes), current partnership status (0 ¼ single; 1 ¼ partnered), time since the separation or divorce (in full years), whether child support payments were received or made (0 ¼ no; 1 ¼ yes), and the linguistic region of residence (1 ¼ German-speaking cantons; 2 ¼ French-speaking cantons; 3 ¼ other [Italian or Romansh]) were available.

#### 5.3 Results

#### 5.3.1 Descriptive Results

Table 5.1 displays summary statistics of the sample and key study variables for parents and children. Descriptive results showed that, as expected, SPC was only reported for 10.9% of the children in post-separation families (vs. 32.6% of children outside of the parental household (NC), 35.9% of children in SC households, and 20.6% of children in VR arrangements). When a 50:50% time split is used, the share of SPC children even dropped to 6.5% (vs. 25.0% of children in VR arrangements). Not surprisingly, the majority of post- separation households with children were female-headed. For example, 87.5% of the SC parents were female compared to 10.5% of non-residential (NC) mothers with minors outside of their household. Furthermore, 92.6% of residential mothers granted another parent VR and 59.8% of SPC parents were female. SPC parents were overrepresented in the Frenchspeaking Swiss cantons (55.8% vs. 28.4% of NC parents, 37.3% of SC parents, and 37.8% of parents with VR arrangements).

SPC parents, both mother and father, reported higher levels of education (41.7–48.2% with the highest level of education, respectively) compared to

Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics of the key study variables by custody arrangements

Notes. NC ¼ no (physical) custody, SC ¼ sole (physical) custody, VR ¼ visitation rights, SPC

¼ shared physical custody a Includes Italian and Romansh

b In years

c Higher values indicate better health

d Higher values indicate higher ratings of well-being. Range of variables was as follows: Age of parents in years 21–71; Number of children 1–6; Age of youngest child in years 0–18; Days per month at the second parental residence 0–30; Self-rated health 1–5; Well-being 1–5

respondents in the NC, SC, and VR groups (27.6–35.8%, 23.1–34.0%, and 24.5–36.8% with the highest levels of education, respectively). Yet at the same time, a larger share of SPC parents reported to have financial difficulties (62.0% vs. 48.5% of NC parents, 56.1% of SC parents, and 56.8% of parents with VR). Most post-separation parents reported to be employed across all custody arrangements, even though the share of unemployed parents was highest among SPC parents (21.1% vs. 16.6% of NC parents, 20.0% of SC parents, and 15.4% of parents with VR). Note that within the SC and VR groups, most parents reported to work part-time (47.1% part-time vs. 32.9% full-time for SC parents and 61.7% parttime vs. 22.9% full-time for VR parents) compared to NC parents who worked predominantly full-time (73.9% vs. 9.5% part-time).

Lastly, SPC was most frequent in families with high-school aged children (33.3% for children aged 9–12 years and 39.2% for children aged 13–18 years) compared to other families. The share of SPC actually increases with children's age: being the least in families with infants aged 0–2 years (2.9%) and growing gradually for children aged 3–5 years (8.7%) and those aged 6–8 years (15.9%).

#### 5.3.2 Regression Results

In order to address the first hypothesis on the relatively privileged positon of SPC parents compared to NC, SC parents, or parents with VR, we employed multinomial regression models predicting the likelihood of belonging to each custody arrangement. Our data is hierarchical with potentially multiple children (Level 2) nested within families (Level 1), and yet the number of siblings did not allow the use of multilevel modeling (Mchildren in families (SD) ¼ 1.80 (0.69)). Therefore, we estimated stepwise regression models with cluster robust standard errors that allow for intragroup correlation. SC served as reference category in all regression models. Model 1 included basic socio-demographic characteristics of the surveyed parent (e.g., age), as well as mothers' and fathers' education, and children's age. Model 2 added partnership characteristics, such as time since the separation of the parents, and whether surveyed parents were currently partnered. In Model 3, we introduce employment status and the financial situation of the surveyed parent.

To ease interpretation and allow comparability across nested models, we report discrete differences in average marginal effects (AME) of the multinomial regression models in Table 5.2 (Long 2015). AME represent the average impact of the independent variable on the likelihood of each outcome category (i.e., belonging to each respective custody arrangement in our case). For continuous variables, the table shows average discrete change in the predicted probabilities for a one-unit increase in the predictor and, for categorical variables, it represents average differences in predicted probabilities for pairs of levels of the predictor.

Results revealed some gender differences in the likelihood of belonging to different custody arrangements. Compared to women, men were more likely to belong the NC group (56–69%) and less likely to belong to the SC and VR groups

5.2Discretedifferencesinaveragemarginaleffectsformultinomialregressionmodelspredictingcustody (continued)

Table 5.2

(continued)

\*\*\*\*\*

p< 0.05. p < 0.01. p < 0.001

aReference category is primary education bReferenceisGerman-speaking

 category cantonscReferencecategory is unemployed

(36–38% and 25–36%, respectively) across all of the models. Higher paternal education, both secondary and tertiary, compared to primary levels of educational attainment, were related to lower chances to belong to the SC group (13–21% and 14–23%, respectively) and higher chances to belong to the VR group (14–17% and 14–18%, respectively). Yet, there was no significant association between SPC and education. Children's age was positively related to the likelihood of belonging to the SC group and negatively to the VR group, but again there was no significant link between children's age and SPC across the models. Model 2 revealed that the more time had passed since the parental separation, chances was greater to belong to the SC group and lower to belong to the SPC group. However, the latter effect faded when employment and financial characteristics were introduced in the final model. Respondents in Italian- or Romansh-speaking cantons were less likely to belong to the SPC group and more likely to belong to the NC group in Model 3.

A second set of regression models predicting self-rated health and emotional well-being examined Hypothesis 2 on the positive link between physical and mental health and SPC compared to more traditional custody arrangements. We estimated stepwise regression models with basic socio-demographic characteristics and custody arrangements in Model 1, partnership characteristics in Model 2, and employment and financial characteristics in Model 3. Again, SC served as the reference category for the custody arrangements in all models. To explore the gender and educational differences in the link between physical or mental health and custody arrangements, we also examined interaction terms between custody arrangements and gender (Hypothesis 2a; Model 4) and custody arrangements and parental education (Hypothesis 2b; Model 5). In order to address potential selectivity effects into custody arrangements based on parents' characteristics, we used the predicted probabilities (i.e., 1 – P(custody arrangement)) from the fully-adjusted multinomial model as regression weights for the these models. Again, a cluster robust standard error estimator was employed to account for the hierarchical structure of the data.

Table 5.3 shows that, contrary to our expectations, custody arrangements were neither significantly associated with self-rated health nor with emotional well-being across all models. Most of parents' socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and educational attainment, were also not associated with self-rated health and emotional well-being across all models (expect for a negative link between parents' age and well-being in Model 1, and a positive link between fathers' tertiary vs. primary education and health in Model 1 and 2). For emotional wellbeing only, being partnered was related to higher ratings (Model 2–5) and living in a French-speaking canton (compared to German-speaking cantons; Model 1–2) to lower ratings of emotional well-being. The employment status and financial situation of the surveyed parent entered in Model 3, however, were significantly related to both health and well-being. More specifically, part- and full-time employed parents reported better health and higher ratings of emotional well-being compared to their unemployed peers (Model 3–5). Having financial difficulties was also linked to lower ratings of self-rated health and well-being (Model 3–5). Lastly, a significant SPC by gender interaction term for health only (Model 4) suggests that, contrary to our expectations, SPC fathers reported significantly poorer health compared to SPC

Table 5.3 Regression results predicting self-rated health and emotional well-being

aReferenceisSC

 category bReferencecategoryisprimary

 education cReference category is German-speaking cantons

dReference category is unemployed

Table 5.3

(continued)

mothers. In Model 5, a significant SPC by secondary (vs. primary) paternal education interaction term emerged for health only, which indicates that SPC parents where fathers had secondary schooling reported better health compared to SPC parents where fathers had primary schooling. Yet there was no difference in reported health between SPC fathers with secondary vs. tertiary schooling.

#### 5.4 Discussion

Non-traditional custody arrangements, such as SPC, are on the rise among separated or divorced parents due to changes in cultural and legal practices across many Western nations (e.g., Bauserman 2012; Cancian et al. 2014; Kitterød and Lyngstad 2012). While the profile of SPC parents has pluralized in terms socio-demographic characteristics in countries where SPC has become a legal default or is institutionally-encouraged, SPC parents tend to be more educated and affluent compared to lone parents or those with VR arrangements in countries where SPC is less prevalent (Vanassche et al. 2017; Sodermans et al. 2013). Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to examine the socio-demographic make-up of SPC parents in Switzerland, which is a rather late and only very partial adopter of gender-neutral parenting policies, and adds to the sparse and contradicting findings on SPC and parents' health and well-being.

In line with our expectations, SPC was practiced by a rather small share of postseparation parents with about 11%, even though a relative low cut-off point was used to define SPC (i.e., at least 30% of the time at the other parents' home). When we used an equal-time sharing model, the percentage of SPC parents was closer to the incidence rate of about 5% reported from German survey data, where clear-cut legal pathways to SPC are equally sparse as in Switzerland (Walper 2016). We therefore conclude that opting for SPC upon separation still represents the exception rather than the rule in Switzerland, which could be attributed to the lack of legal and institutional support for SPC at the time of data collection in 2013. Gender-biased cultural practices in the workforce and, in turn, the private lives of young couples particularly the traditional role distributions in the division of household and childcare tasks upon entry into parenthood (e.g., Bernardi et al. 2013; Bühlmann et al. 2009)—may further increase the likelihood of establishing more traditional (female-headed SC) post-separation custody arrangements upon separation (Juby et al. 2005). For example, we did observe descriptively that the household head in SC and VR arrangements was pre-dominantly female, which highlights persisting gender disparities in parental involvement and the shouldering of childcare duties in post-separation families (Bernardi et al. 2018; Bjarnason and Arnarsson 2011).

We also anticipated that Swiss SPC parents would represent a more privileged group in terms of educational attainment and financial assets compared to lone parents and those with VR arrangement because they would need to voluntarily seek out SPC given the lack of legal guidance and have the available resources to implement it (e.g., maintaining the child's room at both parental homes or having duplicate sets of cloths, school supplies, etc.; Nielsen 2018; Schier and Hubert 2015; Steinbach 2019). Again descriptively, SPC parents tended to be more highly educated compared to the parents with other childcare arrangements, which was in line with our expectation. Yet, the share of parents reporting financial difficulties and unemployed parents was also highest among SPC parents in our descriptive statistics. The discrepancy between parents' higher educational attainment on the one hand, and higher perceived economic strain on the other hand, may be related to the still more unevenly distributed time that children alternate between the parental households and the higher costs of SPC compared to other custody arrangements, as we outlined before. First, the 70%:30% time split could indicate that a bulk of care duties and child-related expenses still needs to be shouldered by one parent (Steinbach 2019), which, in addition to potentially reduced institutional support due to the (formally) higher contribution to parenting duties from both parents, could contribute to the higher perceived economic strain of SPC parents. The high costs of childcare in Switzerland, which could subsequently lead to more precarious work situations for parents unable to afford childcare expenses (Struffolino and Bernardi 2017), on top of the costs related to SPC, could also erode any gains from SPC, such as freed up time and resources to invest in other life domains such as work, dating, or leisure (e.g., Van der Heijden et al. 2015). Thus, SPC could represent more of an economic resource drain than a relief for the more involved parent, when the time is not truly shared equally.

Lastly, we predicted that overall SPC parents would be healthier and happier parents compared to NC, SC, and VR parents because of their more privileged position in terms of SES (Bauserman 2012; Vanassche et al. 2017) and because SPC parents may experience less parental role strain and related stressors (Umberson et al. 2010; Van der Heijden et al. 2016). This expectation was not confirmed in our models. It could be the case that experiencing such fundamental changes in social roles and the reconfiguration of relationships between family members after a divorce or separation (Amato 2010; Bengtson and Allen 2009) may have the effect of 'leveling' or reducing social differentiation between parents (Leopold and Leopold 2016). Or, in other words, union dissolution itself may leave a more permanent mark on or represent a "turning point" for all families, regardless of prior SES or subsequently chosen custody arrangement, which would explain the lack of differences between the custody arrangements. Additionally, we also anticipated that SPC mothers may experience more health and well-being benefits compared to SPC fathers because shared parenting would alleviate mothers from their more traditional role as full-time custodial caretaker and may free up time and energy to invest into other life domains (Bonnet et al. 2018; Bauserman 2012; Schnor et al. 2017), which could in turn foster mothers' health and well-being. Our models partially supported that notion because SPC fathers tended to report poorer health compared to SPC mothers. It could be the case that SPC fathers may perceive health impairments because, in the Swiss context, SPC was still relatively rare and a rather non-traditional post-separation custody arrangement at the time of data collection for which fathers may receive little institutional support or social acceptance (Bjork 2013; Haas and Hwang 2019).

Because SPC fathers may be likely and expected to continue their engagement in full-time employment compared to mothers who often work part-time only, familywork-conciliation issues and parental role strain may weigh harder on their health (e.g., Umberson and Williams 1993). At the same time, we found that only SPC parents where fathers have secondary levels of schooling reported better health compared to SPC parents where fathers had primary levels of schooling only. It could therefore be the case that the positive link between higher levels of paternal education and parental health may buffer with the previously outlined gendered effects that may contribute to SPC fathers' poorer health ratings. For example, SPC families where fathers have higher levels of education may simply have more resources to outsource some care responsibilities (e.g., paying for costly childcare), which may facilitate fathers' family-work-conciliation, or to seek professional help in light of conflict (e.g., seeing a counselor to establish mutually beneficial SPC routines), while still enjoying the health benefits of maintaining father-child bonds (Vogt Yuan 2016). There may not have been a further gain from fathers' tertiary vs. secondary schooling because of ceiling effects or because fathers' potential outsourcing of care duties may in turn contribute financial difficulties, which we observed descriptively.

Nevertheless, involvement in the labor market—whether part- or full-time seemed to be overall a driving force of the physical health and emotional wellbeing of post-separation parents, which is in line with previous research on lone mothers (Struffolino et al. 2016). Because the presence of a new partner was related to higher levels of well-being as well, one could argue that both being able to repartner and to engage in gainful employment may indirectly be facilitated by SPC because these parents simply have more time to be engaged in life domains other than parenting (van der Heijden et al. 2015; Vanassche et al. 2017). However, in a plausible inversed causal relation, more well-adjusted parents may also simply be more likely to take up employment and find a new partner.

#### 5.4.1 Limitations and Future Research

Our study has several limitations. First, we used a rather low cut-off point to define SPC for our sample due to low case numbers for SPC and a left-skewed distribution of the amount of shared time between households. With our criteria, children needed to spend at 30% of the time alternating between parental homes to be grouped into SPC. Even though definitions and criteria of SPC vary widely between studies (i.e., ranging from equal amounts of time up to at least one-quarter of time; Bauserman 2012), unequal time sharing still implies that one parent—often the mother (Bjarnason and Arnarsson 2011)—is likely shouldering the majority of daily childcare task and responsibilities. It could therefore be the case that some SPC parents and those with VR are more similar than we anticipated in terms of sharing parental roles and duties, which could explain the lack of significant differences in health and well-being by custody arrangements. Results may have looked somewhat different if we could have used a stricter criteria for SPC with a larger sample of postseparation and SPC parents specifically.

Second, custody arrangements among post-separation families are likely to evolve and change over time (Poortman and van Gaalen 2017; Smyth and Moloney 2008). Schedules and routines that parents agreed on upon separation or divorce even if court mandated—may be revised if deemed not feasible in practice, altered to the child's needs or wishes, or adapted to new realities such as the emergence of a new partner in a parents' romantic life or even new-partner fertility. Our crosssectional measure of custody arrangements, however, only provided a single snapshot into the routines of separated parents and was therefore not able to capture any dynamic changes over time. Targeted longitudinal data collection will be needed to explore temporal dynamics in the establishment and development of SPC and other custody arrangements among post-separation families. Our dataset also captures parents at different stages after their separation or divorce because the time since separation or divorce varied considerably between former couples. Future research based on these longitudinal follow-ups will need to examine the stability of SPC because prior research has suggested that particularly fathers' investment in non-residential children has shown to fade over time (Berger et al. 2012). It would also have been interesting to look at SPC parents' division of childcare-related task or their ratings of satisfaction with SPC, yet this information was not available in the secondary dataset that was not specifically designed with a focus on studying postseparation custody arrangements. Unfortunately, using existing panel data for Switzerland was still not an option because of the relatively small number of observations available in each wave for this subpopulation, which makes it difficult to apply timelagged models. As SPC diffuses further among the Swiss population and the panel progresses, future research will be able to exploit bigger sample sizes and should be able to address and disentangle causal paths.

Despite these limitations we are confident that our study provides some first evidence of the characteristics of SPC parents as well as correlates of SPC (or the lack thereof) for separated parents in Switzerland, which was still a rather genderbiased and traditional family policy context that promoted more traditional childcare arrangements at the time of data collection in 2013. We therefore argued that the lack of institutional support for SPC and the rather traditional role distribution among Swiss couples hindered the spread of SPC and reinforced gendered SC models. Furthermore, because of the high costs of childcare in Switzerland, SPC may represent more of a resource drain than a relief for the parent shouldering the majority of the care responsibilities, when time is not shared equally between caregivers. Nevertheless, SPC did neither seem to diminish nor foster parents' health and well-being. Future data collection and research will need to monitor the spread of SPC and its' potential ripple effects of the 2017 legislative change in Switzerland that established SPC as a routinely investigated option for post-separation custody arrangements.

Acknowledgements The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this chapter: Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research "LIVES—Overcoming vulnerability: Life course perspectives," which is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF; 51NF40-160590). The authors are grateful to the SNSF for the financial assistance.

This chapter also benefited from the support of the Centre for Population, Family and Health (CPFH) at the University of Antwerp which enabled Open Access.

#### References

example of Italy. Sweden and Britain. Social Science & Medicine, 70(6), 912–920. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.014.

Claudia Recksiedler is a senior research fellow at the German Youth Institute in the Department of Social Monitoring and Methodology. She received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Sciences from Oregon State University and subsequently completed post-doctoral training at the University of Lausanne focusing on the link between single parents' re-partnering choices and health, as well as the emergence and effects of alternative post-separation childcare arrangements on parents. Her research interests further comprise social influences on the adaptation to transition experiences across the life course, such as in the transition to adulthood and to later-life divorce and widowhood.

Laura Bernardi is Full Professor of Life Course Demography and Sociology at the University of Lausanne and co-Editor in Chief of the journal Advances in Life Course Research, co-Editor of the Springer book series Life Course and Social policies, and a member of the Research Council of the Swiss National Research Foundation. Her research interests are in the field of life course sociology and family demography. Her publications range from the cultural determinants of fertility and family behaviours, the role of social influence on fertility and family transitions to spillover and crossover processes in the life course and their effects on wellbeing. She has extensively published in a wide range of peer-reviewed articles in international journals, in the field of demography, sociology and gender, contributed several chapters in collective volumes and has co-edited the books Lone parenthood in the Life Course (Springer); Situating Children of Migrants (Springer); The Demography of Europe (Springer).

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 6 Children's Living Arrangements After Divorce and the Quality of the Father-Child Relationship; Father Involvement as an Important Underlying Mechanism

#### Paula Vrolijk and Renske Keizer

Abstract Using data from the multi-actor Divorce in Flanders survey, this study aimed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of linkages between children's living arrangements after divorce and father-child relationship quality. First, we tested whether father involvement and co-parental relationship quality explained linkages between living arrangements and father-child relationship quality. Second, we examined whether child's loyalty conflicts and child's sex moderated associations between living arrangements and father-child relationship quality. Finally, we explored whether results differed when fathers or children reported on their relationship. Results show that father-child relationship quality (irrespectively of the reporter) was significantly higher for children living in JPC but only compared to children who live solely with their mother. Furthermore, father involvement explained the association between living arrangements and father-child relationship quality (again irrespectively of the reporter). The co-parental relationship also explained part of this association, but only when children reported on father-child relationship quality. The association between children's living arrangement and father-child relationship quality was stronger for sons than daughters. This association did not differ by loyalty conflicts. These findings highlight the importance of enabling fathers to remain involved after divorce and having a positive co-parental relationship for maintaining high quality relationships between fathers and children.

Keywords Living arrangements · Father-child relationship quality · Joint physical custody · Father involvement · Co-parental relationship

P. Vrolijk (\*) · R. Keizer

Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### 6.1 Introduction

Recent trends show an increasing number of children in Europe who have experienced a parental divorce (Eurostat Statistics Explained 2016). While research suggests that a good relationship with both parents has short and long-term beneficial consequences for children's mental well-being (Stafford et al. 2016), in divorced families there is on average less father-child contact and a weaker father-child relationship compared to intact families (Dunlop et al. 2001; Peters and Ehrenberg 2008; Shapiro and Lambert 1999). Even though part of this effect is likely due to selection (i.e. fathers who are less involved in childrearing and who have weaker father-child relationship quality are more likely to experience divorce), longitudinal studies reveal that the divorce itself weakens the father-child relationship (Amato and Booth 1996; Shapiro and Lambert 1999). Given the importance of strong fatherchild relationship quality for child's well-being, it is important to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the conditions under which the father-child relationship is weaker after divorce and what factors may help maintain high quality father-child relationships.

Living arrangement of the child seems to play a crucial role in the association between divorce and father-child relationship quality. Although the majority of children live with their mother after divorce, there is a growing number of children that lives in joint physical custody (JPC), meaning that children live at least one-third of the time with each parent. Many researchers stress that this type of arrangement enables fathers and children to maintain positive father-child relationships after divorce (Baude et al. 2016; Bauserman 2012; Spruijt and Duindam 2009; Vanassche et al. 2017). In the current chapter, we investigate linkages between children's living arrangements after divorce and the quality of the father-child relationship. We contribute to the literature in four ways. First, we differentiate between three different types of living arrangements reflecting children's actual living situation: JPC arrangements, arrangements in which the child lives mainly with the mother (with visitation arrangements for fathers) and arrangements in which the child lives solely with the mother. All recent review studies collapse the latter two categories into one (Baude et al. 2016; Nielsen 2018), although this distinction has important consequences for what opportunities there are for the continuation of the father-child relationship. Second, we move beyond the question whether living arrangements have an effect on father-child relationship quality after divorce. We elaborate on and test different mechanisms that might explain this association, namely the level of father involvement and the quality of the co-parental relationship. Third, we aim to investigate under what conditions JPC is more or less beneficial for father-child relationship quality than living solely or mainly with mother. We examine to what extent the association between living arrangements after divorce and the quality of the father-child relationship is influenced by (a) experienced loyalty conflicts by the child (i.e. feeling caught in the middle between parents), and (b) child's sex. Fourth, the multi-actor nature of our dataset allows us to explore if linkages between living arrangements and the father-child relationship are different depending on whether the father or the child reports on the quality of the father-child relationship. Previous studies that have investigated father-child relationship quality within different living arrangement have only made use of child reports (e.g., Bjarnason and Arnarsson 2011; Carlsund et al. 2013; Låftman et al. 2014), while per definition, relationships consist of (at least) two persons whom both have their own perceptions on and views of the relationship (Harach and Kuczynski 2005). We made use of family systems theory to develop our hypotheses. According to family systems theory, it is important to study individuals within the context of their larger family, which consists of individuals and subsystems (e.g., parental subsystem, parent-child subsystem) that are constantly influencing each other (Cox and Paley 2003; Minuchin 1985).

#### 6.1.1 Linkages Between Living Arrangements After Divorce and Father-Child Relationship Quality: The Issue of Self-Selection

As previously mentioned, the father-child relationship appears to be stronger in JPC compared to other living arrangements, in particular in comparison to sole maternal custody (e.g., Carlsund et al. 2013; Låftman et al. 2014; Nielsen 2018; Spruijt and Duindam 2009; Vanassche et al. 2017). Although there are strong reasons to believe that living arrangements after divorce shape the quality of the relationship children have with their father, we need to take the possibility of self-selection into account, that is, the possibility that characteristics of the different family members and their relationships influence the family's choice for a certain living arrangement. For instance, highly involved fathers who have stronger bonds with their children are more likely to obtain a JPC arrangement. Also, parents who have better co-parental relationships may be more likely to choose for JPC. While self-selection might play a role in research on living arrangements, recent evidence indicates that it does not largely accounts for the benefits of JPC for children (Braver and Votruba 2018).

We made two choices in the current chapter in our attempt to rule out part of the self-selection. First, we decided to control for two important self-selection factors (Braver and Votruba 2018). We controlled for interparental conflicts before the divorce, since low-conflict families are overrepresented in JPC (Sodermans et al. 2013), and interparental conflicts can have a negative effect on the father-child relationship (Kalmijn 2015). We also controlled for parents' socioeconomic status (SES), because highly educated parents have on average a better relationship with their children (Conger et al. 2010) and are more likely to have JPC (Sodermans et al. 2013) compared to lower educated parents.

Second, we decided to use Flemish data to answer our research questions. In Belgium, the percentage of children living in JPC after divorce rose from 7% (couples who divorced before 1995) to 27% (couples who divorced after 2006) (Sodermans et al. 2011). This increase is associated with the tendency towards equal parental rights after divorce and the accompanying changes in laws and policy in Belgium. Since 2006, JPC is introduced as the default residential model after divorce in the Belgian law. So, when parents do not agree on the child arrangements after divorce, the judge must investigate and seriously consider the possibility of an equally divided alternating residence (Vanassche et al. 2017). Due to this change in law, JPC living arrangements are also presented as the default starting option for families in which there are conflicts between the ex-partners or in which the father was relatively weaker involved in childcare during the marriage (Sodermans et al. 2013). As a consequence, since 2006, self-selection into different types of living arrangements after divorce might play a smaller role within the Belgian context. Therefore, and because of the high divorce rate (Eurostat Statistics Explained 2016), Belgium makes an interesting setting to study the effects of different living arrangements after divorce.

#### 6.1.2 Linkages Between Living Arrangements After Divorce and Father-Child Relationship Quality: Causal Relationships

Because parenting time predicts a better father-child relationship (Fabricius et al. 2010), researchers suggest that the more equal children spend their time between mother and father, the higher the quality of the father-child relationship. Research shows that even weak father-child relationships improve when father and child spent more time together (Fabricius et al. 2010). Below we elaborate on two factors that may explain these linkages between children's living arrangements and father-child relationship quality: the level of father involvement and the quality of the co-parental relationship.

#### 6.1.3 Linkages Between Living Arrangements After Divorce and Father-Child Relationship Quality: The Mediating Role of Father Involvement

From a family systems perspective, living under the same roof as your child helps fathers to maintain their role as an involved parent which contributes to a strong father-child relationship (Fabricius et al. 2010; Melli and Brown 2008; Vanassche et al. 2013). Overnight stays enable the father to move beyond the recreational role which he might have had with only daytime contact, and fulfil a more caregiving role (Cashmore et al. 2008; Stewart 1999). It permits the father to be involved in children's everyday lives and routines, like transitions to and from school, or helping with homework. This higher level of father involvement is associated with higher quality father-child relationships (Cashmore et al. 2008).

#### 6.1.4 Linkages Between Living Arrangements After Divorce and Father-Child Relationship Quality: The Mediating Role of the Co-parental Relationship

After divorce, parents end their relationship with each other as spouses, but maintain their relationship as co-parents. Family system theory states that the whole family has to adjust to these new roles, expectations, and boundaries (Ahrons 1980; Carroll et al. 2007).  In sum, ex-spouses need to find a way of cooperating in their new roles within their co-parental relationship. Studies show that JPC predicts stronger co-parental relationships characterized by more emotional support and positive feelings compared to sole custody (Bauserman 2012; Spruijt and Duindam 2009). In turn, this co-parental relationship is shown to benefit the quality of the father-child relationship. Research shows that when mothers and non-residential fathers have positive co-parental relationships, the father-child relationship is stronger (Sobolewski and King 2005).

#### 6.1.5 Linkages Between Living Arrangements After Divorce and Father-Child Relationship Quality: The Moderating Influence of Loyalty Conflicts

Although the quality of the father-child relationship is generally highest in families with JPC, this might not be the case in all circumstances, in particular when there is high interparental conflict (see the review of Smyth et al. 2016). One of the main concerns about JPC is that this type of living arrangement might not be beneficial when children are being exposed to interparental conflicts (Pruett et al. 2014; Smyth et al. 2016; but please note that other scholars argue that JPC is always the best living arrangement, e.g. Kruk 2012; Warshak 2014). Children who experience many conflicts between their parents often experience loyalty conflicts and feel they have to 'choose' between their parents. Children who feel caught in the middle are less able to freely express their love for one parent without the feeling of hurting the other parent or themselves (Afifi and Schrodt 2003). In line with this reasoning, scholars have shown that feeling caught in the middle is associated with low quality parent-child relationships (Afifi and Schrodt 2003; Amato and Afifi 2006). The behavior in the parental subsystem (i.e. interparental conflicts) seems to spill over to the parent-child subsystem (i.e. weaker father-child relations). As such, linkages between children's living arrangements after divorce and the quality of the fatherchild relationship might differ by the extent to which the child reports to feel caught in the middle.

#### 6.1.6 Linkages Between Living Arrangements After Divorce and Father-Child Relationship Quality: The Moderating Influence of Child's Sex

The second possible moderating influence for the relationship between living arrangements and father-child relationship quality is the child's sex. An advantage of JPC (compared to arrangements were children live solely or mainly with their mother) is that fathers can more easily maintain close bonds with their children. Studies showed that fathers are more likely to stay in contact and maintain a strong relationship with sons than with daughters after divorce (Marsiglio 1991; Peters and Ehrenberg 2008; Sobolewski and King 2005). This is probably because fathers are typically more involved with their sons than daughters. In addition, studies show that the father-daughter relationship is at greater risk after divorce compared to the fatherson relationship (for a review see Nielsen 2011). These results suggest that the father-son bond might be strong irrespectively of living arrangement, while for daughters, it especially important to live with their father to ensure a high-quality father-child relationship.

#### 6.1.7 The Present Study

The aim of the current study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of linkages between children's living arrangements and the quality of the father-child relationship by differentiating between three living arrangements. Further we empirically test two underlying mechanisms and examine under what conditions linkages between children's living arrangements and the quality of the father-child relationship differ. We aim to test the following hypotheses:

Further, we explore whether the results of our study differ depending on the person who reports on father-child relationship quality. We make use of structural equation modelling (SEM) to answer our research questions.

#### 6.2 Methods

#### 6.2.1 Data

We made use of the cross-sectional 'Divorce in Flanders' study, which was conducted in 2009–2010 (Mortelmans et al. 2011). This multi-actor study includes information on 4550 first marriages (reference marriages) contracted between 1971 and 2008 that were drawn from the Belgian National Register. Respondents were one or both (ex)-spouses of each reference marriage. Furthermore, one child, the target child, was randomly selected to participate. We only focused on divorced families with a participating minor target child between 10 and 17 years old, living with at least one of the parents at the time of the interview (n ¼ 414). Next, we excluded families who had other arrangements (i.e. living solely with father, living mainly with father, or a flexible arrangement) than our three arrangements of interest (n ¼ 57). Sample sizes within these living arrangements were too small to draw meaningful conclusions from comparisons. Finally, we excluded families whereby the child did not have any face-to-face contact with father, because these children were not asked about the relationship with their father (n ¼ 35). Our final sample contains information on 322 divorced families. Participants were interviewed by face-to-face Computer Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI).

In total, 780 family members were part of our research sample, consisting of 173 fathers (Mage ¼ 43.62, SD ¼ 4.52), 285 mothers (Mage ¼ 41.42, SD ¼ 4.06), and 322 children. The mean age of the participating children (51.2% boys) was 13.71 (SD ¼ 2.16). The majority of the parents was highly educated (fathers ¼ 37.0%, mothers ¼ 43.5%) or moderately educated (fathers ¼ 41.6%, mothers ¼ 44.2%). Almost all fathers (87.9%) and half of the mothers (50.9%) had a full-time job. Approximately one third of the mothers was working a part-time job (35.1%). At the time of the interview half of the parents was living with a new partner (fathers ¼ 54.9%, mothers ¼ 44.9%).

#### 6.2.2 Measures

Living Arrangements To categorize the families into living arrangements we used information on children's actual residency. This information was collected using the month-calendar (Sodermans et al. 2014). A residential calendar was presented to the parent, corresponding with a regular month. The parent indicated for every day and night whether the child resided with him/her or with the

Table 6.1 Percentages of children, mothers, and fathers per living arrangement

ex-partner. When answers of parents were not identical, a mean score was calculated. Next, we distinguished three different living arrangements based on regularly used cut-off criteria (e.g., Fabricius et al. 2012; Smyth et al. 2008): (1) living solely with mother (100% at mother's residence), (2) living merely with mother (child lives 66–99% of the time with mother and less than 33% of the time with father), and (3) living in JPC (child lives at least 33% of the time with each parent). This resulted in 85 children (26.4%) who were living solely with mother, 118 children (36.6%) who were living merely with mother, and 119 children (37.0%) who were living in JPC. Table 6.1 shows how all family members were divided among the living arrangements.

Father-Child Relationship Quality Father-child relationship quality was reported by fathers and children separately. Relationships are defined as dyads that accumulate a history of interactions over time (Hinde 1976). In the most recent review on living arrangements and children's outcomes (Nielsen 2018), the quality of parent-child relationship was described as how well parents and children communicate and how close they feel to each other. To tap into the specific concept of father-child relationship, most researchers use different items. For example, scholars assess both affection as well as conflicts between parents and children (e.g., Fauchier and Margolin 2004), or both care as well as control (e.g., Dunlop et al. 2001). In the current study, in a similar line, we aimed to tap into both an affective and an evaluative component of the father-child relationship. First, children and fathers were asked to rate the quality of their father-child relationship ('How good or how bad is the relationship with your father/child?') on a 5-point scale from (1) very bad to (5) very good. Second, we assessed parent-adolescent communication by the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS) (Barnes and Olson 1985). Children and fathers answered 9 items on a 7-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. An example item is 'I openly show affection to my father/My child openly shows his or her affection for me'. The communication scale showed a good reliability for children (α ¼ .83) and fathers (α ¼ .78). Finally, because the relationship-item and communication scale was significantly correlated for both fathers, r(169) ¼ .48, p < .001, and children, r(315) ¼ .68, p < .001, we decided to compute their mean to indicate the quality of father-child relationship quality. Father-child relationship quality from father's perspective and from child's perspective were analyzed separately. Father and child report on father-child relationship were significantly related, r(169) ¼ .45, p < .001.

Father Involvement Father involvement is a quantitative measure reported by fathers. This scale consists of 6 questions concerning how often the father undertakes certain activities with his child (i.e. helping with homework, talking about his/her problems, having fun together, taking part in leisure activities, taking to/from school, going to parent evenings). Fathers could answer on a 7-point scale, ranging from (1) never to (7) daily. The scale showed an acceptable reliability, α ¼ .70.

Co-parental Relationship Co-parenting refers to interactions of parents regarding their children, or the ways that parents work together in their roles as parents (Feinberg 2003). This is somewhat different from the interparental or marital relationship. Van Egeren and Hawkins (2004) state there are 4 co-parenting dimensions; co-parenting solidarity, co-parenting support, undermining co-parenting, and shared parenting. By incorporating different items that tap into these different dimensions, we aimed to obtain a multidimensional concept of co-parenting. To measure the co-parental relationship, both parents reported on three items. First, both parents were asked to rate the quality of their relationship at time of the interview ('How would you describe the relationship with [ex-spouse] at the moment?') on a 5 point scale from (1) very bad to (5) very good. Second, parents filled in two questions that were related to the co-parenting practices, (1) 'My ex-spouse and I agree on how to share the responsibilities of parenting', and (2) 'My ex-spouse and I have difficulty discussing financial matters involving the children' (reversed). Items are answered on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) never to (5) almost always. These three questions together with the relationship question had an acceptable reliability for fathers (α ¼ .71) and mothers (α ¼ .72). The mean of the three items was computed to indicate the co-parental relationship according to fathers and mothers separately. Higher scores are corresponding to a better co-parental relationship. Reports of fathers and mothers were strongly correlated, r(134) ¼ .55, p < .001. This was true within all living arrangements (ranging from r ¼ .47, to r ¼ .62). When both parents (n ¼ 136) reported on the co-parental relationship, we decided to compute the mean.

Loyalty Conflicts Children were asked whether they experienced conflicts between the parents (i.e. blamed each other, yelled at each other, used violence, broke things deliberately, did not want to talk to each other) during the last 12 months. Children who indicated that they never experienced interparental conflicts, were not asked about their loyalty conflicts (n ¼ 129). Children who did indicate that they experienced interparental conflicts could answer on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Completely false to (5) Completely true whether they feel caught in the middle when their parents argue. Because data was not normally distributed, we decided to create three categories; (1) children who never experienced interparental conflicts (n ¼ 129), (2) children who did experience interparental conflicts, but indicated the statement about loyalty conflicts was completely false, false, or neither true nor false (n ¼ 113), and (3) children who did experience interparental conflicts and who indicated the statement about loyalty conflicts was true or completely true (n ¼ 61).

Conflicts Before Separation Conflicts during the year before separation were reported both by fathers and mothers. Parents were asked how frequently they blamed each other, yelled at each other, used physical violence, threw or broke things deliberately or not wanted to talk to each other for a while. They could answer on a 7-point scale, ranging from (1) never to (7) daily. These five items had a good reliability for fathers (α ¼ .72) and mothers (α ¼ .78).

Child's Sex The sex of the child was indicated by the interviewer whereby male was coded as 0 and female as 1.

#### 6.2.3 Data Analysis

To answer our research questions, structural equation modeling in Mplus version 8 (Muthén and Muthén 2017) was used. We tested our hypotheses by using three models: (1) a saturated model for the direct effect of living arrangements on fatherchild relationship quality, (2) a model for testing the mediation effects, and (3) a saturated model for testing the moderation effects. All models were computed two times; once for child-reported father-child relationship quality, and once for fatherreported father-child relationship quality.

First, we tested whether there was a main effect of living arrangements on the quality of the father-child relationship, in which we treated JPC as the reference category. To examine this direct effect, we used a saturated model that included all control variables. We controlled for the previously mentioned self-selection factors: father's SES, mother's SES, father-reported and mother-reported interparental conflicts before separation. Further we controlled for children's age at the time of the interview, as father's involvement is shown to vary by child's age (Lamb 2000; Marsiglio 1991). Next, we controlled for the child's age at separation since previous research suggests that the older the child was at time of separation, the more opportunities the father and child had to develop a strong father-child relationship (Cheadle et al. 2010). We also controlled for the effect of re-partnering (0 ¼ no partner, 1 ¼ new partner), because re-partnering of both mothers and fathers might have an influence on father-child relationship quality (e.g., Kalmijn 2012; Noël-Miller 2013; Tach et al. 2010). Finally, we included the effects of loyalty conflicts and child's sex since these variables may be related to father-child relationship quality.

Second, when there was a significant main effect, we tested the indirect effects. We included both father involvement and the co-parental relationship to the model. We added the effect of living arrangements on both variables. We also added the effect of both variables on father-child relationship quality. Then, to improve model fit, we included more parameters and compared each model by a chi-square difference test. When model fit did not significantly improve, we tested for the indirect effects.

Finally, the moderation effects of loyalty conflicts and child's sex were examined by adding six latent variables to the first saturated model, without father involvement and the co-parental relationship in the model. Two latent variables represented the interaction between child's sex and dummy coded living arrangements (0 ¼ JPC). The other four latent variables represented the interaction between dummy coded loyalty conflicts (0 ¼ no interparental conflicts) and dummy coded living arrangements. Father-child relationship quality was regressed on these latent variables.

Within the 322 families, 149 fathers and 37 mothers did not participate. Some important differences were found between parents who were missing and parents who were not missing from the data. Fathers who did not participate (M ¼ 4.23, SD ¼ 0.94) had children who reported a lower father-child relationship quality compared to fathers who were not missing (M ¼ 4.53, SD ¼ 0.90), t(315) ¼ 2.88, p ¼ .004, d ¼ 0.32. When the mother had missing data (M ¼ 4.71, SD ¼ 0.64), children reported higher father-child relationship quality compared to families where the mother was not missing (M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 0.96), t(60) ¼ 3.07, p ¼ .003, d ¼ 0.45. Mothers who did not participate had more often an equally divided living arrangement (V(1, 322) ¼ .30, p < .001), while fathers who did not participate had more often children who lived solely with mother (V(1, 322) ¼ .38, p < .001). Parents with missing data did not differ on child-reported loyalty conflicts, partner-reported conflicts before divorce, partner-reported co-parental relationship or father-reported father-child relationship quality. Little's (1988) Missing Completely at Random test produced a norm χ2 (χ2 /df) of 1.51. This indicates that it is likely that data was missing at random and it is safe to impute missing items (Bollen 1989). Missing data was imputed using the missRanger package in R (Mayer, 2019). Maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was used as the estimator, since it takes into account non-normality (Satorra and Bentler 1994). Because MLR is used, the chi-square difference test is not reliable due to the scaling correction. Therefore, the scaling correction factor is accounted for by using the Satorra-Bentler Scaled Chi-Square. RMSEA's smaller than .05, and CFI's larger than .95 indicated an adequate model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999).

#### 6.3 Results

#### 6.3.1 Descriptives

The frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations of all variables are represented in Table 6.2 and 6.3 for each living arrangement separately. Also results of one-way between analyses of variances (ANOVA's) and Cramer's V's are represented, to compare the different living arrangements on all variables. Regarding the key variables, the groups differed significantly on child-reported father-child relationship quality, father involvement and the co-parental relationship. Post-hoc tests revealed that children who lived solely with their mother reported lower fatherchild relationship quality compared to children who lived mainly with mother

Table 6.3 Frequencies, percentages, and Cramer's V statistics

\* ¼ p < .05, \*\* ¼ p < .001

(d ¼ 0.37, p ¼ .003) and children in JPC (d ¼ 0.45, p < .001). Further, in JPC families, fathers reported more father involvement compared to families whereby the child lived mainly with mother (d ¼ 0.62, p < .001) or solely with mother (d ¼ 0.87, p < .001). There was also significantly more father involvement in families whereby the child lived mainly with mother compared to families whereby the child lived solely with mother (d ¼ 0.41, p ¼ .025). Finally, within JPC parents had a better co-parental relationship compared to living arrangements in which the child lived solely with mother (d ¼ 0.28, p ¼ .037). We did not find any significant differences between the three types of living arrangements on father-reported father-child relationship quality, child's sex, and loyalty conflicts. Correlations between all concepts are shown in Table 6.4.

#### 6.3.2 Child-Reported Father-Child Relationship Quality

First, we tested the main effect of living arrangements on the child-reported fatherchild relationship quality in a saturated model including all control variables.  Children in JPC reported higher father-child relationship quality compared to children who lived solely with mother. There was no difference between children in JPC and children who live mainly with mother on their father-child relationship quality (β ¼ 0.03, p ¼ .790).

In order to answer the mediation questions, we included father involvement and the co-parental relationship to the saturated model. We added parameters until model fit did not significantly improve (see Table 6.5). After the eighth model, model fit did not significantly improve so we decided to use that model for the mediation analyses

Table 6.4 Correlations between measures

\* ¼ p < .05, \*\* ¼ p < .001

(χ2 (13) ¼ 16.07, p ¼ .246, RMSEA ¼ 0.03, CFI ¼ 0.99). Table 6.6 represents the parameters of this final model.

For the first mediation analysis (father involvement), we found that fathers whose child lived solely or mainly with mother reported less father involvement compared to fathers with JPC. Further, more father involvement predicted higher father-child relationship quality. We tested whether father involvement explained the difference we found in father-child relationship quality between children in JPC and children who lived solely with mother. Results showed that father involvement indeed explained this difference. Children living solely with mother reported lower levels of father-child relationship compared to children in JPC, because their fathers were less involved.

For the second mediation analysis (co-parental relationship) results indicate that parents with JPC had a better co-parental relationship compared to parents whose children lived solely with mother, and (approaching borderline significance) parents whose children lived mainly with mother. Further, a better co-parental relationship predicted a stronger father-child relationship quality. The indirect effect of the co-parental relationship was also significant. Results show that children in JPC have a stronger father-child relationship quality compared to children living only with mother, because their parents have a better co-parental relationship.

Next we analyzed whether the effect of living arrangements was the same for boys and girls and across different levels of loyalty conflicts. We added the four latent variables that represent the interaction of the dummy coded loyalty conflicts and the dummy coded living arrangements to the saturated model. We also added the interaction effects between child's sex and dummy coded living arrangements to the model. Parameters of this saturated model are shown in Table 6.7.

First, the model shows a main effect of loyalty conflicts on father-child relationship quality. Children who experience loyalty conflicts reported lower father-child relationship quality compared to children that experienced no interparental conflicts. Also, children who indicated they experienced interparental conflicts but no loyalty conflicts, reported lower father-child relationship quality compared to children that experienced no interparental conflicts. The interaction terms concerning the moderation effects of loyalty conflicts were not significant. So, the relationship between living arrangements and father-child relationship quality did not differ by level of loyalty conflicts.

Second, the model shows that girls reported a lower father-child relationship quality compared to boys. One interaction effect of child's sex was significant, indicating that the difference between JPC and living solely with mother in fatherchild relationship quality was less strong for girls compared to boys. The other interaction effects showed that boys and girls did not differ on the difference between JPC and living mainly with mother in father-child relationship quality.

#### 6.3.3 Father-Reported Father-Child Relationship Quality

Also, for father-reported father-child relationship quality we first examined the direct effect of children's living arrangements after divorce on the quality of the fatherchild relationship in a saturated model, while including all control variables. Similar to the results found when we used child reports, results indicated there was only a difference between fathers in JPC and father whose child lived solely with mother in father-child relationship quality (β ¼ -0.28, p ¼ .048). So, when all control variables included in the model, fathers in JPC reported higher father-child relationship quality compared to fathers whose child lived solely with mother. There was no difference between fathers in JPC and fathers whose children lived mainly with mother (β ¼ 0.14, p ¼ .334).

In order to check whether father involvement and the co-parental relationship mediated the effect of living arrangements on father-child relationship quality we computed a new model containing father involvement and the co-parental relationship. Again, we added parameters until model fit did not significantly improve (see Table 6.8). This resulted in the same final model as the model we used for child-reported father-child relationship with the same model fit, (χ2 (13) ¼ 16.07, p ¼ .246, RMSEA ¼ 0.03, CFI ¼ 0.99). All parameters for this model can be found in Table 6.9.

Similar to the results we found when we relied on child-reports, children's living arrangements after divorce were a significant predictor for the level of father involvement. In line with our expectations, our results showed that fathers whose child lived solely or mainly with mother reported less father involvement compared to fathers with JPC. More father involvement in turn, predicted better father-child relationship quality reported by fathers. The difference between JPC and living solely with mother in father-reported father-child relationship quality was also significantly explained by father involvement. So, more father involvement explained why fathers in JPC reported higher father-child relationship quality compared to fathers whose children lived solely with mother.

Next, regarding the co-parental relationship, there was a significant effect from living arrangements on the co-parental relationship. Parents in JPC had a better co-parental relationship compared to parents whose children lived only with mother. However, in contrast to the child reports, the co-parental relationship did not predict father-child relationship quality. The indirect effect of the co-parental relationship was also not significant, meaning that the co-parental relationship did not explain the difference between JPC and living only with mother in father-reported father-child relationship quality.

Next we analyzed whether the effect of living arrangements on father-reported father-child relationship quality differed by level of loyalty conflicts and by child's sex. We added the interaction effects between dummy coded loyalty conflicts and dummy coded living arrangements and the interaction effects between child's sex and dummy coded living arrangements to the saturated model.

Within this model (see Table 6.10), we found no effect of child's loyalty conflicts on father-reported father-child relationship quality. Further, the relationship between living arrangements and father-reported father-child relationship quality did not significantly differ for different levels of loyalty conflicts experienced by children.

Second, there was no main effect of child's sex on father-reported father-child relationship. Finally, the relationship between living arrangements and fatherreported father-child relationship did not significantly differ for sons and daughters.

#### 6.3.4 Control Variables

Finally, regarding control variables, models show that mother-reported interparental conflicts before separation have a negative effect on child-reported father-child relationship quality while it was positively related to father involvement. Next, higher levels of interparental conflicts before separation reported by fathers predict a lower father-child relationship quality reported by fathers. When their father had a new partner, this was related to a weaker child-reported father-child relationship. However, when their mother had a new partner, this was related to a higher quality of child-reported father-child relationship. Mother's re-partnering was also related to a better co-parental relationship. Further, parents' SES was predicting father-child relationship quality reported by children. When their father had a higher SES, this was related to higher child-reported father-child relationship quality, while higher levels of mother's SES were related to lower child-reported father-child relationship quality. When fathers were more highly educated, they were also more likely to be more involved. Finally, older children had less involved fathers compared to younger children.

#### 6.4 Discussion

In this study, we examined the effect of children's living arrangements after divorce on father-child relationship quality. We made a distinction between three living arrangements: JPC, living mainly with mother, and living solely with mother. We examined two mechanisms that may underlie linkages between children's living arrangements after divorce and father-child relationship quality, namely the level of father involvement and the quality of the co-parental relationship. Furthermore, we tested to what extent these linkages were conditioned by the level of loyalty conflicts experienced by the child or the child's sex. Finally, we examined to what extent our results differed by the person reporting on the quality of the father-child relationship (father or child).