POST-SEPARATION PATTERNS OF PARENTING IN AUSTRALIA WHO OPTS FOR WHICH PATTERNS AND WHY? BRUCE SMYTH B.A. A report of research submitted as full requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology Faculty of Life and Social Sciences Swinburne University of Technology December 2005 ABSTRACT Despite widespread interest in patterns of parenting after separation in Australia, the gaps in our knowledge remain large and fundamental. Most studies, including those overseas, have taken a quantitative tack, measuring the frequency and overall amount of face-to-face contact between children and non-resident parents (mostly fathers). But obviously there is more to parent–child contact than just time. The nature and quality of the interaction are also important – perhaps even more so. Recently there has been a push towards recognising and describing both qualitative and quantitative differences in the many ways that parental sharing of time with children can occur after divorce. This thesis attempts to identify and explore some of these differences by comparing five different patterns of care: (i) 50/50 shared care, (ii) little or no contact, (iii) holiday-only contact, (iv) daytime-only contact, and (v) “standard” contact (thought to occur every-other-weekend and half of each school holidays). A representative snapshot of parent–child contact schedules after separation is presented to provide some of the detail of arrangements within this typology. Two (complementary) types of data are used: qualitative data from a series of focus groups with separated parents, and quantitative data from three large representative samples of separated/divorced parents in Australia. Joining the dots between the various pieces of data, there is much to suggest that family dynamics in tandem with demographic factors temper the form that parent–child contact takes, with different combinations of factors clearly linked to qualitatively different patterns of post- separation parenting. While separating parents need to be encouraged to think more laterally about what arrangements might work best for their children and themselves, the data presented suggest that some parents in Australia are already being very creative and there is much diversity of arrangements. The central argument running through this ii dissertation is that arrangements that allow children to experience fluid, meaningful time with each parent are critical for children’s and parents’ wellbeing. The ideas and data presented here – especially some of the more creative timesharing schedules developed by parents – are likely to be a useful resource for separated parents, and the family law professionals they approach for assistance, to reflect on when developing or refining parenting arrangements after divorce. iii DEDICATION In loving memory of my grandparents, Gertrude and Reuben Cohen, and my friend Paddy. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I am indebted to the many respondents who participated in this research. This work would not have been possible without their help. I am especially grateful to Michael Gilding and Kathy Betts of Swinburne University of Technology for their encouragement, support, expert supervision, and helpful comments along the way; my friend and colleague, Ruth Weston, who has also been a bedrock of support and encouragement; and my other friends and colleagues at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, particularly Anna Ferro, Catherine Caruana, Lixia Qu, and Ilene Wolcott, for their help with the Caring for Children after Parental Separation Project. More specifically, Anna Ferro, Catherine Caruana and Carol Whitfield helped transcribe and analyse some of the focus group data. Under supervision, Anna conducted the initial analysis of the focus group data for “standard” contact, while Catherine and Carol did the same for the “daytime-only” contact and holiday-only contact focus groups respectively. Anna also helped to sort and transpose the contact schedule data, computed some of the descriptive statistics used in Chapter 10, and profiled the focus groups participants whose comments were quoted (see Appendix 2). Lixia Qu provided statistical expertise in transposing the Family Characteristics Survey data, and in calculating the design effect for the HILDA data reported in Chapter 9. I have re-worked the focus group material in Chapters 6–8 so that what remains is my original thought and words. Other colleagues at the Institute also deserve special thanks: Carolyn Shaw, Claire Walker, and the late Christine McCarthy, for their meticulous transcriptions of some of the focus group interviews; Carole Jean, Anita Emmanoulidis, Judy Adams and other members of the Family Information Centre for their help obtaining much of the material cited in this work; Ross Millward and Melissa Veit for their unwavering expert I.T. support; and the Institute’s editor, Meredith Michie, for minor editorial suggestions along the way as part of the publication process. v I am especially grateful to the Australian Institute of Family Studies for supporting my studies (particularly David de Vaus and David Stanton), and allowing me access to data from the Caring for Children after Parental Separation Project. Much of this dissertation has already been published in different forms in Australia and elsewhere. My hope is that the Institute benefits from these publications, and treats them as a small gesture of my gratitude for its generous support. Some thanks are beyond words, and this is the case for my long-standing friends, the Bishop family – especially Phil, the Moloney family – particularly Lawrie, the Meagher family – especially Marcia and Jem, Christine Kilmartin, Christine Millward, and Colin Riess. Thank you for being there in so many ways – sometimes small but mostly big. To my children, Ellie and Jordan; my parents, Judy and David; my brothers, Ricky, Darren, and Mark; my uncle and aunt, John and Sandra; my cousins, Rhonda and Gary – I love each of you more than you will ever know. One special friend, Sophie Holloway, deserves to be singled out. Sophie read every word of this thesis on several occasions, and constantly chanted “You can do it! Keep going!” in the background. May each word come back as a blessing. This dissertation draws on confidentialised unit record file from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (MIAESR). The findings and views reported in this thesis, however, are those of the author and should not be attributed to either FaCS or the MIAESR. Any shortcomings or errors in this work are mine alone. vi DECLARATION No part of this work has been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or tertiary institution. To the best of the best of my knowledge, any theories or research that are not my own have been acknowledged in the text. While parts of this thesis draw on joint published or unpublished work, the work presented here is based on my intellectual contribution, and was written and conceptualised by me. Bruce Smyth vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT II DEDICATION IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V DECLARATION VII LIST OF TABLES XIII LIST OF FIGURES XIV CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Some commonly held “truths” 3 Patterns of parent–child contact in Australia 4 Structure of the thesis 8 Language 8 A typology for categorising contact 9 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11 Studies of parent–child contact: What do we know? 13 Australia 13 New Zealand 20 United Kingdom 23 United States of America 26 Canada 31 Summary 32 Parent–child contact and children’s wellbeing 33 Summary 35 The need for a more comprehensive approach 36 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN 38 Qualitative data 38 Dataset 1: Focus groups 38 viii Quantitative data 44 Dataset 2: HILDA 44 Dataset 3: Caring for Children after Parental Separation 48 Dataset 4: Family Characteristics Survey 50 Summary 50 CHAPTER 4: FIFTY-FIFTY CARE 52 50/50 shared care 52 The focus groups 55 Vignettes 56 Sally and Rod 56 Kathy 57 Key themes 60 Parental motives 60 Work and money 62 The parent–child relationship 64 Paternal competence 65 Logistical challenges 66 Putting kids first 67 Summary 68 CHAPTER 5: LITTLE OR NO CONTACT 70 Fatherless-ness: Society’s most pressing social problem? 70 Research into paternal disengagement 71 The focus groups 75 Vignettes 75 Ross 76 Audrey 77 Key themes 77 Fathers’ perceptions of being "cut out" 81 From Dr Heckle(d) to Mr Hide? The psychology of disengagement 83 “The system” 84 The “shallowness” of sporadic contact 85 Other forms of contact 87 Caught in the middle: Children’s adjustment 88 ix Summary 90 CHAPTER 6: HOLIDAY-ONLY CONTACT 93 The focus groups 96 Vignettes 97 Jackie 97 Gerard 98 Mark 99 Key themes 99 Juggling work, family and holidays 100 Predictability, then quantity, then quality? 101 Other forms of communication 103 Obstruction and disempowerment 105 Physical and emotional space 107 “It gets easier as they get older” 109 Summary 110 CHAPTER 7: DAYTIME-ONLY CONTACT 112 When the difference is night and day 112 Who don’t some children stay overnight? 115 The focus groups 117 Vignettes 118 John 118 Penny 119 Key themes 120 Parental conflict 121 “Hanging out” with Dad 124 Impact on the parent–child relationship 126 “His interest just wasn’t there anymore” 129 Triggers and the status quo 130 Children’s safety and paternal competence 132 New partners and second families 133 Structure or process? 134 Summary 134 x