Microsoft Word - Lamb & Kelly Parent Child Contact Final 2008.doc

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Improving the Quality of Parent-Child Contact in Separating Families with

Infants and Young Children: Empirical Research Foundations

Michael E. Lamb and Joan B. Kelly

Social scientists in general, and psychologists in particular, largely agree that

parent-child relationships play a crucial role in shaping children’s development and

adjustment. As a result, considerable efforts have been made to examine the

developmental course of these relationships, the features ensuring that some relationships

have more positive effects on children’s development than others, and the effects of

parent-child separations and relationship disruptions on children’s subsequent

adjustment. In this paper, we briefly summarize the relevant empirical literature, citing

the secondary rather than primary literature for the most part in order to minimize the

length and density of the text. We first discuss the development of infant- and child-

parent relationships, and the factors that affect the strength and quality of these

relationships. We then turn to research concerned with the effects of divorce on children,

with special focus on the ways in which harmful effects can often be minimized by

promoting the maintenance of children’s relationships with both of their divorcing

parents. We have discussed many of these issues in some detail elsewhere (.e.g., Kelly,

2005, 2007; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Kelly & Lamb, 2000, 2003; Lamb, 2002a, 2002b, in

press; Lamb & Lewis, 2005; Trinder & Lamb, 2005) but this chapter provides our most

up-to-date statement. Our goal is to provide those professionals conducting custody

evaluations or assessments with an underlying empirical foundation for understanding

and weighing the many complex issues seen in separating families, including those in

which parents are disputing custody and access arrangements. Knowledge of the social

science literature also provides evaluators and other professionals with a sound basis for

formulating and defending recommendations regarding children’s living arrangements to

the court if such recommendations are expected or requested (Kelly & Johnston, 2005).

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS

Kelly and Lamb (2000), among others, have documented how an understanding

of normative developmental phases informs both our understanding of the ways in which

parental separation and divorce may affect children’s development and adjustment as

well as the design of post-divorce living arrangements most likely to benefit children. As

described by Bowlby (1969), and largely confirmed by subsequent research (for detailed

review, see Thompson, 2006), Kelly and Lamb (2000) recounted how infant-parent

attachments pass through four broad developmental phases, during the first three of

which infants learn to discriminate among adult carers and gradually develop emotional

attachments to them.

In the first two months (phase 1), infants indiscriminately accept care from any

carer and use a repertoire of innate signals, including crying and smiling, to bring and

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

keep potential carers close to them. The relief of distress from hunger or pain and the

growing interest in and response to social signals from adults are the building blocks for

more discriminating attachment processes but regular interaction is needed to continue

the process of attachment formation because infants at this age have very primitive

memories and cognitive abilities.

In the period extending from 2 to 7 months of age (phase 2), infants increasingly

begin to recognize their parents and other carers and to prefer interaction with them. They

also begin to anticipate carers’ responses to their signals although they do not yet

understand that people (including carers) continue to exist when they are not present.

Infants of this age initiate and enjoy social interactions and start to show signs of

“attachment in the making.” They do not yet typically protest separations from their

parents, but require frequent contact with their parents for attachment formation to

continue. Importantly, research has shown that fathers are as competent to care for their

infants and toddlers as mothers, given comparable opportunities and experiences (Lamb,

1997, 2002a; Parke, 1996).

In the third phase of attachment development (between 7 and 24 months),

attachments become increasingly apparent, as infants preferentially seek to be near and to

interact with specific carers, by whom they are more easily soothed than by strangers.

Contrary to Bowlby’s initial speculation and widespread ‘common sense’, there is

considerable evidence that most infants in two parent families do not become attached to

their mothers first but rather form attachments to both parents at about the same age,

around 6 to 7 months (see Lamb, 2002a, for a review) even though fathers typically

spend less time with their infants than mothers do (Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). This

indicates that, although a threshold level of interaction is crucial for attachments to form,

time spent interacting is not the only critical dimension.

Infants begin to protest when separated from their primary attachment figures

around 6 to 7 months of age, react warily to strangers, and, in a rudimentary way, start

recognizing that parents continue to exist even when they are not present. Over the

ensuing months, infants and toddlers become able to tolerate longer separations from

their parents or attachment figures, although such separations may remain stressful. Most

infants come to ‘prefer’ the parents who take primary responsibility for their care

(typically their mothers), but this does not mean that relationships with their less-

involved parents are unimportant. In fact, many toddlers and preschoolers seem to

‘prefer’ their ‘traditional’ fathers, especially when they are not stressed or tired (Lamb,

2002a). The amounts of time that infants spend with their two parents does not appear to

determine whether or not the attachment relationships with either are insecure or secure.

However, the relative prominence of the two parents in caring for and interacting with

their children does appear to affect the relative importance of the two relationships with

respect to their impact on later development. Specifically, the relationship with the more

involved parent tends to have a greater impact than the relationship with the less involved

parent, albeit not clearly in direct proportion to the relative levels of involvement.

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Nonetheless, both relationships remain psychologically important even when there are

disparities in the two parents’ levels of participation in child care.

According to attachment theorists, infants form attachments to those who have

been available regularly and have responded to the infants’ signals and needs (Lamb,

Thompson, Gardner, & Charnov, 1985; Thompson, 2006). All carers are not

equivalently sensitive, of course, and individual differences in responsiveness affect the

quality or security of the attachment relationships that form. The quality of both maternal

and paternal behavior is reliably associated with the security of infant-parent attachment

(DeWolff & Van IJzendoorn, 1997; Van IJzendoorn & DeWolff, 1997). Interestingly,

the association between the quality of paternal behavior and the quality of infant-father

attachment appears to be weaker than the parallel association between maternal behavior

and the security of infant-mother attachment. However, the quality of both mother- and

father-child interaction remains the most reliable predictor of individual differences in

psychological, social, and cognitive adjustment in infancy, as well as in later childhood

(Lamb & Lewis, 2005; Thompson, 2006).

According to Yarrow (1963; Yarrow & Goodwin, 1973), separation responses of

infants become increasingly intense as attachments to parents and other important carers

strengthen between 6 and 24 months. As mentioned earlier, most infants initially prefer

the parent who provides most of their care and are more likely to seek out their preferred

parents for comfort when distressed (see Lamb, 2002a, for a review). Non-preferred

parents remain emotionally important, however, and are sought out for other social and

emotional needs, and, when primary carers are not available, for comfort. Preference for

primary carers diminishes with age and often disappears by 18 months of age (Lamb,

2002a). Although infants and toddlers may resist transitions between parents in the

second year, just as they sometimes protest (even more strongly) daily transitions to out-

of-home care providers, they generally comfort quite quickly once the transition is

accomplished. This is particularly likely when both parents have the opportunity to

engage in normal parenting activities (feeding, playing, soothing, putting to bed, etc.)

while attachments are being established and consolidated.

Infants and toddlers need regular interaction with their “attachment figures” in

order to foster, maintain, and strengthen their relationships (Lamb, Bornstein, & Teti,

2002; Thompson, 2006). This means that young children need to interact with both

parents in a variety of contexts (feeding, playing, diapering, soothing, reading, putting to

bed, etc.) to ensure that the relationships are consolidated and strengthened. In the

absence of such opportunities for regular interaction across a broad range of contexts,

infant-parent relationships may weaken rather than grow stronger. When toddlers are

separated for as little as a few days from all of their attachment figures (for example, both

parents) simultaneously, intense distress and disturbances that persist for 6 months after

reunion have been reported (Bowlby, 1973; Heinicke, 1956; Heinicke & Westheimer,

1966; Robertson & Robertson, 1971). Reactions are muted, but not eliminated, when

children are cared for by other attachment figures or sensitive substitute carers during the

separation (Robertson & Robertson, 1971). Extended separations from parents with

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

whom children have formed meaningful attachments are thus undesirable because they

unduly stress developing attachment relationships (Bowlby, 1973). The loss or

attenuation of important attachment relationships may cause depression and anxiety,

particularly in the first two years, when children lack the cognitive and communication

skills that would enable them to cope with loss. The absence of regular contact slowly

erodes relationships, such that, over time, parents who do not interact regularly with their

infants effectively become strangers.

In the final phase of attachment formation, which begins around age two, toddlers

better understand why parents come and go, and can enter with their parents into some

joint planning around daily activities (Greenberg, Cicchetti, & Cummings, 1990;

Thompson, 2006). The increased cognitive and language abilities of 2- to 3-year-olds

enable them to tolerate somewhat longer separations from their parents without undue

stress. However, their very primitive sense of time prevents them from conceptualizing

much beyond today and tomorrow, inhibiting their ability to understand and cope with

lengthy separations of several weeks or months.

Relationships with parents continue to play a crucial role in shaping children’s

social, emotional, personal and cognitive development into middle childhood and

adolescence (Lamb & Lewis, 2005). Indeed, the quality of both mother- and father-child

relationships remains the most reliable correlates of individual differences in

psychological, social, and cognitive adjustment in infancy, as well as in later childhood

(Lamb & Lewis, 2005; Thompson, 2006). Not surprisingly, therefore, children in both

two- and single-parent families appear better adjusted when they enjoy warm positive

relationships with two actively involved parents (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Hetherington,

1999; Lamb, 1999, 2002b; Thompson & Laible, 1999). Children are better off with

insecure attachments than without attachment relationships, however, because these

enduring ties play essential formative roles in later social and emotional functioning.

There is also a substantial literature documenting the adverse effects of disrupted parent-

child relationships on children’s development and adjustment, with a linear relationship

between age of separation and later attachment quality in adolescents. The weakest

attachments to parents are reported by those whose parents separated in the first 5 years

of their lives (Woodward, Fergusson, & Belsky, 2000). Similarly, in a retrospective study

of adolescents whose parents had divorced, Schwartz and Finley (2005) found that age at

time of divorce was associated with ratings of both paternal involvement and nurturance,

indicating that the earlier the separation, the greater the impact on the quality of the

children’s relationships with their fathers.

THE EFFECTS OF PARENTAL SEPARATION OR DIVORCE

Researchers have clearly demonstrated that, on average, children benefit from

being raised in two biological or adoptive parent families rather than separated, divorced,

or never married single parent households (Amato, 2000; Aquilino, 1996; Carlson, 2006;

Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 2006; Clarke-Stewart, Vandell, McCartney, Owen, & Booth,

2000; Hetherington, 1999; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; McLanahan, 1999; McLanahan

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

& Sandefur, 1994; McLanahan & Teitler, 1999; Simons & Associates, 1996; Simons,

Lin, Gordon, Conger, & Lorenz, 1999), although there is considerable variability within

groups, and the differences between groups are relatively small. Indeed, although

children growing up in fatherless families are, on average, disadvantaged relative to peers

growing up in two-parent families with respect to psychosocial adjustment, behavior and

achievement at school, educational attainment, employment trajectories, income

generation, involvement in anti-social and even criminal behavior, and the ability to

establish and maintain intimate relationships, the majority of children with divorced

parents enjoy average or better-than-average social and emotional adjustment as young

adults (Booth & Amato, 2001; Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 2006; Hetherington & Kelly,

2002; Kelly & Emery, 2003). Approximately 20-25% of children in post-separation and

divorced families give evidence of adjustment problems, compared to 12% in married

families. Thus, the majority of children from separated families evince no

psychopathology or behavioral symptoms, although they are likely to experience psychic

pain for at least some period of time (Emery, 1998; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002;

Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000; Schwartz & Finley, in press).

Such individual differences in outcomes force us to identify more precisely both

the ways in which divorce/single parenthood may affect children’s lives and the factors

that might account for individual differences in children’s adjustment following their

parents’ separation. Five inter-related factors appear to be especially significant.

Economic Stresses

Typically, single parenthood is associated with a variety of social and financial

stresses with which custodial parents must cope, largely on their own. Single parent

families are more economically stressed than two parent families, and economic stresses

or poverty appear to account (statistically speaking) for many effects of single parenthood

(Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; McLanahan, 1999).

Reductions in Time with Children

Because single mothers need to work more extensively outside the home than

married or partnered mothers do, parents spend less time with children in single-parent

families and the levels of supervision and guidance are lower and less reliable than in

two-parent families (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; McLanahan, 1999). Reductions in the

level and quality of parental stimulation and attention may affect achievement,

compliance, and social skills while diminished supervision makes antisocial behavior and

misbehavior more likely (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Conflict Between Parents

Conflict between the parents commonly precedes, emerges or increases during the

separation and divorce processes, and often continues for some time beyond them.

Interparental conflict is an important correlate of children’s psychosocial adjustment just

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

as marital harmony, its conceptual inverse, appears to be a reliable correlate of positive

adjustment (Cummings et al., 2004; Johnston, 1994; Kelly, 2000). The negative impacts

of high levels of marital conflict on the quality of parenting of both mothers and fathers

have been well documented. In general, parental conflict is associated with more

rejecting, less warm and nurturing parenting by mothers, and with fathers’ withdrawal

from parenting and engagement in more intrusive interactions with their children

(Cummings & Davies, 1994; Grych, 2005). Anger-based marital conflict is associated

with filial aggression and externalizing behavior problems, perhaps because such parents

and children have similar difficulty regulating negative affect (Katz & Gottman, 1993).

These and other data support the observation that some of the ‘effects of divorce’ are

better viewed as the effects of pre-separation marital conflict and violence (Kelly, 2000).

The adversarial legal system tends to promote conflict between already vulnerable

parents because of its win-lose orientation and the way it fosters hostile behaviors and

demands. Although the adversarial process purports to focus on children’s “best

interests”, parents’ psychologically-driven legal strategies more often represent their

own needs and perceived entitlements, and the effect is to diminish the possibility of

future civility, productive communication, and cooperation (Kelly, 2003).

Quality and Type of Parenting

The quality and type of parenting have emerged as important influences on the

post-separation/divorce adjustment of school-aged children and adolescents.

Deterioration in the quality of parenting after separation has long been recognized

(Belsky, Youngblood, Rovine, & Volling, 1991; Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 2006;

Hetherington, 1999; Sturge-Apple, Davies, & Commings, 2006; Wallerstein & Kelly,

1980). Many parents are preoccupied, stressed, emotionally labile, angry, and depressed

following separation, and their “diminished parenting” includes less positive involvement

and affection expressed with their children, and more coercive and harsh forms of

discipline. Additional internal factors affecting quality of parenting include parents’

psychological adjustment, violence, and high conflict. External factors such as

absorption in dating, new partners, cohabitation, remarriage, and poverty and financial

instability are also associated with reductions in the quality of parenting (Amato, 2000;

Hetherington, 1999; Kelly, 2000; Pruett, Williams, Insabella, & Little, 2003; Simons,

Lin, Gordon, et al, 1999; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

Researchers have identified specific aspects of parenting that can moderate the

impact of separation and divorce on children’s social, emotional, and academic

adjustment, and potentially protect children against the harmful impacts of high conflict.

Effective parenting by separated mothers is characterized by warmth, authoritative

discipline (setting limits, noncoercive discipline and control, enforcement of rules,

appropriate expectations), academic skill encouragement, and monitoring of the

children’s activities (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Buchanan, 1996; Hetherington, 1999;

Martinez & Forgatch, 2002; Simons et al, 1999). As described in more detail below, the

effective parenting of fathers that is linked to more positive adjustment following divorce

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

is also associated with effective paternal behaviours including active involvement (help

with homework and projects, emotional support and warmth, talking about problems and

involvement in school (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Hetherington,

1999; Finley & Schwartz, in press).

Disruptions in Relationships with Fathers

Divorce commonly disrupts one of the child’s most important and enduring

relationships, that with his or her father. As Amato (1993; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999) has

shown with particular clarity, however, the bivariate associations between father absence

and children’s adjustment are much weaker than one might expect. Indeed, Amato and

Gilbreth’s (1999) meta-analysis revealed no significant association between the

frequency of father-child contact and child outcomes, largely because of the great

diversity in the types of ‘father-present’ relationships. We might predict that contacts

with abusive, incompetent, or disinterested fathers are likely to have much different

effects than relationships with devoted, committed, and sensitive fathers. As expected,

Amato and Gilbreth (1999) found that children’s well-being was significantly enhanced

when their relationships with nonresident fathers were positive, when the nonresident

fathers engaged in “active parenting,” and when contact was frequent. Dunn, Cheng,

O’Connor, and Bridges (2004), Simons and Associates (1996), Hetherington, Bridges,

and Insabella (1998), and Clarke-Stewart and Hayward (1996) likewise reported that

children benefited when their nonresident fathers were actively involved in routine

everyday activities, and the conclusion was clearly supported in recent analyses by

Carlson (2006) of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth. Carlson showed

that father involvement was associated with better adolescent adjustment and that

paternal involvement partially mediated the effects of family structure (notably divorce or

single parenthood) on adolescents’ behavioral outcomes. Similarly, higher levels of

paternal involvement in their children’s schools was associated with better grades, better

adjustment, fewer suspensions, and lower dropout rates than were lower levels of

involvement (Nord, Brimhall, & West, 1997). Active engagement in a variety of specific

activities and on-going school-related discussions between fathers and their adolescents

significantly lowered the probably of school failure when compared to adolescents with

less actively engaged fathers.

Another meta-analysis indicated that, on multiple measures of emotional and

behavioral adjustment and academic achievement by mothers, fathers, teachers, and

clinicians, children in joint physical custody were better adjusted than children in sole

custody arrangements. In fact, children in shared custody were as well adjusted as

children whose parents remained married (Bauserman, 2002). Although joint physical

custody parents reported less past and current conflict than did sole physical custody

parents, conflict did not explain the superiority of the children in joint custody

arrangements. Again, the clear implication is that active paternal involvement, not simply

the number or length of meetings between fathers and children, predicts child adjustment.

This suggests that post-divorce arrangements should specifically seek to maximize

positive and meaningful paternal involvement rather than simply allow minimal levels of

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

visitation. As in non-divorced families, in other words, the quality of continued

relationships with the parents--both parents--is crucial (Kelly & Lamb, 2000). Stated

differently and succinctly, the better (richer, deeper, and more secure) the parent-child

relationships, the better the children’s adjustment, whether or not the parents live together

(Lamb, 2002a, 2002b).

A recent longitudinal study of representative samples of adolescents living in low

income neighbourhoods in Boston, San Antonio, and Chicago nicely illustrated the

associations over time between non-resident paternal involvement and adolescent

delinquency after statistically controlling for the effects of influences such as

demographic factors and the quality of mother-child relationships (Coley & Medeiros,

2007). As expected, non-resident paternal involvement was associated with less

delinquency overall; importantly, higher paternal involvement was associated with

declines in delinquency over time, particularly among adolescents who were more

involved with delinquent activities. In addition, as delinquency increased, paternal

involvement increased too, suggesting that fathers were responding to changes in their

children’s problem behaviour. Similarly, in another longitudinal study of adolescents,

Menning (2006) showed that adolescents whose non-resident fathers were more involved

were less likely to start smoking.

Given the demonstrated importance of fathers’ active participation and effective

parenting, the influence of maternal attitudes on the extent of paternal involvement in the

marriage and following separation and divorce is important (Cowdery & Knudson-

Martin, 2005; Pleck, 1997). Mothers can be influential gatekeepers of paternal

involvement through attitudes and behaviors that limit or facilitate fathers’ opportunities

to parent and develop close relationships with their children. Mothers’ traditional

attitudes toward women’s roles, identities linked primarily to caregiving, and perceptions

that mothers are more competent at child care than fathers are associated with more

active inhibitory gate-keeping, particularly following separation, and this is linked with

lower levels of father involvement (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Fagan & Barnett, 2003).

Overall, then, a number of factors help account for individual differences in the

effects of divorce, and because they are inter-correlated, it is difficult to assess their

relative importance. The ability to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents

does appear to be of central importance, however, both in its own right and as a correlate

of some of the other factors. As shown later, thoughtful interventions can take advantage

of these inter-correlations, initiating processes that minimize the adverse effects on

children’s adjustment by striving to promote healthy relationships between children and

both of their parents, whether or not they live together.

MINIMIZING THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE

Even though children’s best interests are usually served by keeping both parents

actively involved in their children’s lives, many custody and access arrangements may

not foster the maintenance of relationships between children and their non-resident

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

parents. The use of traditional “visiting guidelines” in many jurisdictions which prescribe

every other weekend to the nonresident parent (with perhaps a brief midweek visit), or

the reliance of mental health professionals on unsubstantiated beliefs that every other

weekend is the best parenting plan for children, has caused great dissatisfaction and sense

of loss among the majority of children in post-divorce arrangements. Research on

children’s and young adults’ views of their post-divorce living arrangements indicates

that the majority express strong wishes and longing for more time with their fathers, a

desire for more closeness, and favorable views of shared physical custody as their

preferred schedule (Fabricius & Hall, 2000; Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000; Smith &

Gallop, 2001). Arbitrary and one-size-fits-all time restrictions on the amounts of time

children spend with their fathers have been the norm regardless of the quality of the

father-child relationship. It is no less important to maintain both child-parent attachments

when the divorced parents had ‘traditional’ roles before divorce than when they shared

parenting responsibilities more equitably. Our focus should remain on the children’s best

interests, not “fairness” to the parents.

Writing on behalf of 18 experts on the effects of divorce and contrasting

parenting plans, Lamb, Sternberg, and Thompson (1997, p. 400) observed more than a

decade ago that: “To maintain high-quality relationships with their children, parents need

to have sufficiently extensive and regular interactions with them, but the amount of time

involved is usually less important than the quality of the interaction that it fosters. Time

distribution arrangements that ensure the involvement of both parents in important

aspects of their children’s everyday lives and routines...are likely to keep nonresidential

parents playing psychologically important and central roles in the lives of their children.”

In order for parents to have a positive impact on their children’s development, it is

important that parents be integral parts of their children’s lives. This remains especially

important as children get older and greater portions of their time are occupied outside the

family by virtue of friendships, extracurricular activities, sports, and the like. At all ages,

it is important for parents to know teachers and friends, what’s happening at school or

pre-school, how relationships with peers are going, what other activities are important or

meaningful to the children, etc., and to be aware of daily ups-and-downs in their

children’s lives. It is hard to do this without regular and extensive first hand involvement

with their children in a variety of contexts.

As Kelly and Lamb (2000; Lamb & Kelly, 2001; Lamb, 2002b) reiterated, the

ideal situation is one in which children with separated parents have opportunities to

interact with both parents frequently in a variety of functional contexts (feeding, play,

discipline, basic care, limit-setting, putting to bed, etc.). The evening and overnight

periods (like extended days with naptimes) with nonresidential parents are especially

important psychologically for infants, toddlers and young children. They provide

opportunities for crucial social interactions and nurturing activities, including bathing,

soothing hurts and anxieties, bedtime rituals, comforting in the middle of the night, and

the reassurance and security of snuggling in the morning that 1 to 3 hour long visits

cannot provide. According to attachment theory, as noted earlier, these everyday

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

activities promote and maintain trust and confidence in the parents, while deepening and

strengthening child-parent attachments, and thus need to be encouraged when decisions

about access and contact are made.

One implication is that even young children should spend overnight periods with

both parents when both have been involved in their care prior to separation, even though

neo-analysts have long counseled against this (Kelly & Lamb, 2000; Lamb & Kelly,

2001). As Warshak (2000) has pointed out, the prohibition of overnight “visitation” has

been justified by prejudices and beliefs rather than by any empirical evidence. When both

parents have established significant attachments and both have been actively involved in

the child’s care, overnight ‘visits’ will consolidate attachments and child adjustment, not

work against them. Consistent with this reasoning, the results of recent research by Pruett

and her colleagues (2005) show that regular overnight visits were associated with better

adjustment on the part of toddlers and young children. Parents who have been actively

involved before divorce but are then denied overnight access to their children are thereby

excluded from an important array of activities, and the strength or depth of their

relationships suffer as a result.

Solomon and Biringen (2001) challenged Kelly and Lamb’s (2000) conclusions

regarding the beneficial effects of overnight visits for many young children, citing the

results of a study by Solomon and George (1999a, 1999b). Contrary to their assertions,

however, these researchers did not find that overnight visits with non-custodial fathers

adversely affected the security of infant-mother attachment, or that overnights were more

problematic for preschoolers than for infants and preschoolers. In addition, many of the

infants and toddlers they studied had never lived with their two parents and may thus not

have formed attachments to their fathers before the overnight visits commenced; their

situation is much different than that of infants and toddlers who have established

attachments to two involved parents prior to separation/divorce which was the context

explicitly addressed by Kelly and Lamb (2000). Different steps are needed when

promoting the formation rather than the maintenance of attachments, as Kelly and Lamb

(2003) pointed out in another paper concerned with young children whose parents live

too far apart for children to have regular contact with both of them. Solomon and George

(1999a, p. 27) also noted that some of the infants in their study had experienced extended

and repeated separations from their fathers, which, as noted above, would have stressed

these relationships further.

To minimize the deleterious impact of extended separations from either parent,

furthermore, attachment theory tells us there should be more frequent transitions than

would perhaps be desirable with older children (Kelly & Lamb, 2000). To be responsive

to young children’s psychological needs, in other words, the parenting schedules adopted

for children under age two or three should actually involve more transitions, rather than

fewer, to ensure the continuity of both relationships and to promote the children’s

security and comfort. Although no empirical research exists testing specific parenting

plans following separation, it is likely, for example, that infants and toddlers would

remain most comfortable and secure with a schedule that allowed the child to see his or

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

her father at least three times a week, including at least one overnight extended stay

(assuming father is adequate), so that there is no separation of greater than 2-3 days.

From the third year of life, the ability to tolerate longer separations begins to increase, so

that most toddlers can manage two consecutive overnights with each parent without

stress.

Interestingly, psychologists have long recognized the need to minimize the length

of separations from attachment figures when devising parenting plans, but they have

typically focused only on separations from mothers, thereby revealing their presumption

that young children are not meaningfully attached to their fathers, or that paternal

involvement is a peripheral influence. The lingering resistance to overnights among

professionals working with divorcing families appears to view fathers as essential

strangers to their infants and toddlers, rather than as important attachment figures. To the

extent that children are attached to both of their parents, however, separations from both

parents are stressful and at minimum generate psychic pain. As a result, parenting plans

that allow children—especially very young children--to see their fathers every other

Saturday for a few hours, or every other shortened weekend (with perhaps a brief mid-

week visit) clearly fail to recognize the adverse consequences of weeklong separations

from non-resident parents. It is little wonder that such arrangements lead to attenuation

of the relationships between non-resident parents and their children. Instead, it is

desirable to promote continued involvement by both parents, striving when necessary to

increase the participation of those parents (typically fathers) whose limited prior

involvement may initially make overnight contact inappropriate (Kelly & Lamb, 2003).

Recently, Fabricius and Luecken (2007) found that the more time a group of university

students had lived as children with their fathers the better were their relationships with

their fathers, independent of amount of parent conflict. More time with fathers appeared

to be beneficial in both high and low conflict families, and more exposure to parent

conflict appeared to be detrimental (poorer health status and more distress) at both high

and low levels of amount of time with fathers. Inter-parental conflict should thus be

avoided wherever possible, but its presence should not be used to justify restrictions on

children's access to either of their parents.

RESTRICTING CONTACT IN RESPONSE TO MARITAL CONFLICT

Of course, there are some cases in which the possible benefits of keeping both

parents involved are outweighed by the costs of doing so. Conflict-filled or violent

relationships between the parents are most likely to trigger such cost-benefit analyses

because, as noted earlier, continuing high conflict is reliably associated with poorer child

outcomes following divorce (Johnston, 1994; Kelly, 2000; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).

Children in high conflict families who have frequent contact with their fathers are more

poorly adjusted than those in low conflict families (Amato & Rezac, 1994; Hetherington,

1999; Johnston, 1994; Johnston, Kline, & Tschann, 1989; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).

Inter-parental conflict should thus be avoided wherever possible, but litigation-related

conflict and conflict triggered by the high levels of stress around the time of divorce do

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

not appear to have enduring consequences for children. As a result, their occurrence

should not be used to justify restrictions on children’s access to either of their parents.

Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) cautioned that minor or isolated instances of

domestic violence should not affect decisions regarding custody and visitation. The high

conflict found harmful by researchers such as Johnston (1994; Johnston & Roseby, 1997)

typically involved repeated incidents of spousal violence and verbal aggression between

parents with substantial psychiatric problems and personality disorders that continued

after divorce at intense levels for extended periods of time, often in front of the children.

As a result, Johnston has emphasized the importance of continued relationships with both

parents except in those relatively uncommon circumstances in which intense, protracted

conflict or violence occurs and persists. According to Maccoby and Mnookin (1992),

somewhere around a quarter of divorcing families experience high levels of conflict

around the time of divorce, and perhaps 10% of them may have conflict that is

sufficiently severe and intractable that it may not be beneficial for the children concerned

to have contact with their non-resident parents (see also Johnston, 1994). Not all

entrenched post-divorce conflict involves both parents’ participation, however, because

in a significant number of cases, one parent has essentially disengaged emotionally from

the other parent, and is not promoting or instigating the conflict, but is a victim of the

other parent’s rage and vindictiveness, intransigence, and/or failure to comply with

parenting and financial orders, and therefore may need to return to court for assistance

(Friedman, 2004; Kelly, 2003, 2005).

Significant numbers of children have warm and supportive relationships with

parents who have highly conflicted and/or violent relationships with one another, so we

must be careful when reports of parental conflict are allowed to influence decisions about

parent-child contact (Holden, Geffner, & Jouriles, 1998; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992;

Sternberg & Lamb, 1999). According to Appel and Holden (1998), 60% of the children

whose parents were violent with one another were not themselves victims of physical

child abuse, suggesting that decision-makers need to assess the relationships with parents

directly and not simply assume that children must have been abused because their parents

were violent with one another. Unfortunately, however, mere allegations of conflict or

even marital violence can be powerful tools in an adversarial system, frequently resulting

in reduced levels of court-approved contacts between fathers and children (Sternberg,

1997). Disagreements about the occurrence, nature, and perpetrators of violence are

quite common, furthermore, and do not always reveal self-serving biases (Braver &

O’Connell, 1998; Sternberg, Lamb, & Dawud-Noursi, 1998).

Newer research which differentiates among types of intimate partner violence is

directly relevant to these issues of custody and access. Types of partner violence

identified include Situational Couple Violence, instigated by both men and women in

fairly equal numbers, characterized most often by more minor forms of violence

(pushing, shoving, grabbing). Injuries are not as common, and fear of the partner is not

typical. Situational couple violence typically arises from arguments that spiral upward

and poor conflict management skills, rather than power, coercion and control as central

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

dynamics (Babcock, Costa, Green, & Eckhardt, 2004; Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Leone,

2005; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kelly & Johnson, in press; Stets & Straus, 1992). In

contrast, Battering (also called Intimate Terrorism), seen primarily in shelter and hospital

samples, is primarily male perpetrated, accounts for most of the injuries seen in women,

and has coercion, control, and emotional abuse as the primary dynamics. Separation

Instigated Violence has also been identified in couples whose prior history together did

not include any violence or coercion and control (Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kelly,

1982). Although the experience of parental violence is always distressing, if not

traumatic, for children, these differences among types of partner violence have

implications for various post-separation interventions, screening, and the development of

appropriate parenting plans for children (Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, & Bala, in press; Kelly

& Johnson, in press).

Research on the impact of post- as opposed to pre-divorce conflict on children’s

adjustment has yielded mixed results. Some investigators have found that marital conflict

is a more potent predictor of post-divorce adjustment than post-divorce conflict (Booth &

Amato, 2001; Buehler, Krishnakumar, Stone, Anthony, Pemberton, Gerard, & Barber,

1998; King & Heard, 1999; Kline, Johnston, & Tschann, 1991), whereas Hetherington

(1999) found that post-divorce conflict had more adverse effects than did conflict in

married families. Booth and Amato (2001) reported no association between the amount

of post-divorce conflict and later adjustment in young adults. The varied findings may

reflect the use of different measures, a failure to differentiate between types of conflict

after divorce, differing parental styles of resolution, and/or variations in the extent to

which children are directly exposed to anger and conflict. High conflict is more likely to

be destructive post-divorce when parents use their children to express their anger, and are

verbally and physically aggressive on the phone or in person. By contrast, when parents

continue to have conflict, but encapsulate it and do not put their children in the middle,

children appear unaffected (Buchanan et al., 1991; Hetherington, 1999). Buffers have

also been identified which may protect children from the harmful effects of high parent

conflict, including a good relationship with at least one parent or caregiver, parental

warmth, and emotional support from a sibling (Vandewater & Lansford, 1998;

Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

In addition, most experts agree that conflict localized around the time of

separation and divorce is of less concern than conflict that was and remains an intrinsic

and unresolved part of the parents’ relationship and continues after their divorce

(Cummings et al., 2004; Cummings & O’Reilly, 1997; Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

Similarly, conflict from which children are shielded also does not appear to affect

adjustment (Hetherington, 1999) whereas conflict that includes physical violence is more

pathogenic than high conflict without violence (Jouriles, Norwood, McDonald, Vincent,

& Mahoney, 1996; McNeal & Amato, 1998).

The quality of the relationships between non-residential parents and their children

is also crucial when determining whether to sever or promote relationships between

divorced parents and their children. Regardless of the levels of violence, there are many

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

families in which non-resident fathers and children have sufficiently poor relationships--

perhaps because of the fathers’ psychopathology, substance or alcohol abuse – that

“maintenance” of interaction or involvement may not be of net benefit to the children, but

we do not know how many relationships are like this. Unrepresentative data sets, such as

those collected by Greif (1997) in the course of research designed to study fathers and

mothers who lose contact with their children after divorce, suggest that perhaps ten to

fifteen percent of parents do not have either the commitment or individual capacities to

establish and maintain supportive and enriching relationships with their children

following divorce. Taken together, Johnston’s and Greif’s estimates suggest that, at

most, 15% to 20% (depending on how greatly the two groups of parents overlap) of the

children whose parents divorce might not benefit from regular and extended contact with

their non-resident parents. Stated differently, of course, this suggests that more than

three-quarters of the children experiencing their parents’ divorce could benefit from

having and maintaining relationships with their non-resident parents. Instead of

‘standard’ parenting plans, therefore, individual circumstances should be examined to

ensure that the arrangements made are sensitive to the parents’ and children’s strengths,

schedules, and needs (Kelly, 2005, 2007; Smythe & Chisholm, 2006).

INTERVENTIONS WHICH PROMOTE CHILDREN’S RESILIENCY

In response to empirical research demonstrating the factors associated with risk in

children whose parents have separated, a number of different interventions and best

practices have been developed that focus on parents’ conflict and communication, quality

of parenting, children’s reactions to separation and divorce, development of appropriate

parenting plans, and sustainable agreements. Among the hierarchy of interventions

available in the court system and community, both public and private, are education

programs for separating parents, custody and divorce mediation programs, judicial

settlement conferences, collaborative lawyering, specialized programs for parents with

continuing high conflict post-divorce, and Parenting Coordination. While many programs

have face validity, and generally receive high ratings on parent satisfaction and self-

reports of reduced parent conflict, only a small percentage have been empirically

evaluated (Kelly, 2002; Trinder & Lamb, 2005).

The most widespread and inexpensive interventions are education programs for

separating parents which explain to parents the effects of divorce on children, the impact

of parent conflict, the particular risk when parents use their children to express their

anger and disagreement, the need to separate children’s needs from adult needs,

parenting skills, and often provide skill-based training to minimize conflict and promote

more effective communication. At least in the short term, these courses appear to be

effective (e.g., Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996; Bacon & McKenzie, 2004; Ellis & Anderson,

2003; Pedro-Carroll, Nakhnikian, & Montes, 2001), particularly when the content is

empirically-based and includes skill-based training and role-play experiences. More

extensive research-based parent education programs appear to bring about meaningful

behavioural changes in both mothers and fathers (for review, see Haine, Sandler,

Wolchik et al., 2003; Braver, Griffin, Cookson et al., 200?).

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Of all the divorce-related interventions implemented to date, custody and divorce

mediation enjoys the most empirical support regarding the benefits to divorcing and

divorced families (Emery, 1994; Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, et al, 2001; Kelly,

1996, 2002, 2004). The potential benefits are substantial in both the short term (e.g.,

earlier settlement of parenting disputes, reduced parental conflict, improved parental

support), and the longer term (e.g., more sustained contact between fathers and children

12 years later), relative to parents using the traditional adversarial system (Emery et al,

2001; Kelly, 2004).

The increasing use of Parenting Coordinator over the past two decades in the

United States represents an effort to address the needs of children in situations of very

high conflict. Parenting Coordination is a child-focused dispute resolution process

designed to assist parents with a continuing history of high conflict to settle disputes

regarding their children in a timely manner, and to facilitate compliance with parenting

plans and related court orders. A non-adversarial intervention, the Parenting

Coordination role combines case and conflict management, relevant parent education,

mediation, and, when specified, arbitration of certain child-related disputes which the

parents cannot settle on their own. Parenting Coordination is generally viewed as a post-

decree process for parents who have demonstrated a continuing inability to settle child-

specific disputes through other means, including private negotiations, mediation,

specialized parent education groups, settlement conferences, or following trial. Most

Parenting Coordinators serve by stipulation of the parents and court order, or by private

consent agreements. In general, the judiciary has been supportive and enthusiastic; other

professionals involved with these families have also indicated in surveys that parent

coordinators can be very effective, especially in reducing the frequency and intensity of

disputes (Coates et al., 2004). Parenting Coordinators in jurisdictions with the most

experience have revised and refined the role more precisely, which is reflected in the

Guidelines for Parenting Coordination developed by an AFCC task force (2006), and the

need for specialized training for mental health and legal professionals undertaking this

role has been further articulated (Guidelines, 2006; Kelly, in press). While there is as yet

no systematic research on the long-term effectiveness, dramatic decreases in the rates of

litigation (court appearances) in the first year after Parent Coordinators were appointed

was reported in one unpublished dissertation (Johnson, 1994). Several articles in a recent

special issue of Family Courts Review (2001, Volume 39, issue 3) on the most

problematic post divorce families make clear that parent coordinators are among the most

important interventions available to smooth the post-separation and divorce transitions,

and this point was underscored in the recent article by Coates and her colleagues (2004).

There are a number of best practices that mental health professionals can provide

to help separating parents reduce the risk that their children potentially face. First, they

can prepare parents to talk to their children about those aspects of the separation and

divorce that directly affect their children. Most children are not informed about the

details and meaning of the parental separation for them, are not invited to ask questions

nor allowed an opportunity to give suggestions regarding their new living arrangements,

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

and not consulted regarding schedule changes (Dunn, Davies, O’Connor, & Sturgess,

2001; Smart, 2002; Smart & Neale, 2000), which leaves children to cope with these

major changes in their lives without either emotional support or cognitive clarity.

Secondly, professionals can become familiar with and promote awareness of

various models for parenting plans which have been developed partly in response to

research such as that described in this chapter. Instead of one standard visiting pattern, a

menu of different time-sharing options for children of different ages encourages parents,

professionals, and courts to consider children’s ages and developmental needs and

achievements; the quality of parent-child relationships, parents’ interest and capacity to

be involved in their children’s lives, and children’s voices and input when appropriate.

Parenting plan models typically include multiple options for various living arrangements

that range from traditional visiting, expanded access involving more midweek and

weekend time, and variations of shared physical custody arrangements. Many of the

parenting plan models available include highly detailed templates to guide parental

choices with respect to legal decision-making and parental responsibilities (see Note 1 for

examples). It is important that agreements and court orders are sufficiently detailed so

that both parents know when, where, and how their children will make the transitions

between households, eliminating the ambiguity that angry parents exploit and which

often cause one or both parents to argue in front of their children. Orders that use the

vague language of ‘liberal visitation’ invite sustained argument, and, when mothers

remain angry, do not sufficiently protect children’s relationships with their fathers. Even

in legal cultures that emphasize ‘private ordering,’ lawyers, therapists, and custody

evaluators should help parents develop specific schedules for children’s time with each

parents, and courts should routinely expect such language and detail.

Thirdly, because transitions between households provide opportunities for

discussion and argument, it is important when parents have a history of conflict to ensure

that these exchanges take place in neutral settings and at times that limit contact between

the parents. Parenting plans that extend weekends to Monday morning and use mid-week

overnights (assuming adequate parenting skills) rather than brief 3 hour visits have been

used extensively by mediators, lawyers, and Parenting Coordinators in the past decade in

the United States. In such plans, one parent drops the children off at school, and the other

parent picks them up at the end of the school day or from day care. Parenting

Coordinators report that many children benefit from the elimination of face-to-face parent

confrontations at the family residence or other meeting places, and conflict becomes a

much less frequent experience. Increasing number of locations now have visitation

exchange centers where children can be brought by one parent to reunite with the other

without making it necessary for the parents to encounter one another directly. Such

arrangements may be especially helpful when either the parents or children are fearful,

and have been shown to increase the frequency of contact between non-resident parents

and their children while reducing levels of conflict between the parents (Flory, Dunn,

Berg-Weger, & Milstead, 2001).

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Fourth, custody evaluators should become familiar and stay current with the

empirical literature regarding attachment, child development, parent-child relationships,

separation and divorce and children’s adjustment. If they are to make recommendations

to the court, a subject currently generating some controversy (Tippins & Wittman, 2005),

these recommendations should be grounded in and supported by the current research

literature, rather than theory or subjective bias (Kelly & Johnston, 2005).

CONCLUSION

In all, basic research on early social development and descriptive research on the

multifaceted correlates of divorce have together yielded a clearer understanding of the

ways in which divorce affects children and of how the welfare of many children could be

enhanced by changes in common practices. Most importantly, we know that children

benefit from supportive relationships with both of their parents, whether or not those

parents live together. We also know that relationships are dynamic and are thus

dependent on continued opportunities for interaction. In order to ensure that both adults

become or remain parents to their children, post-divorce parenting plans need to

encourage participation by both parents in as broad as possible an array of social contexts

on a regular basis. Brief dinners and occasional weekend visits do not provide a broad

enough or extensive enough basis for such relationships to be fostered, whereas weekday

and weekend daytime and nighttime activities are important for children of all ages. In

the absence of sufficiently broad and extensive interactions, many fathers drift out of

their children’s lives, and children see their fathers as increasingly peripheral, placing

these children at risk psychologically and materially. It is not clear exactly how much

time is necessary to ensure that both parents stay involved in their children’s lives, and

undoubtedly this will vary from family to family and the age of the children. Braver and

O’Connell (1998) have suggested that at least one-third of the non-school hours should

be spent with the non-resident parent and most experts would agree that 15% (every other

weekend) is almost certainly insufficient.

To date, unfortunately, policy makers, judges, and lawyers in many jurisdictions

have not been very attentive to the importance of promoting children’s relationships with

both of their parents. Representative statistics are not readily available (see Smyth,

2004), although there is general satisfaction in many countries and jurisdictions (and

among mothers) with post-separation arrangements that ensure ‘regular contact’ without

sufficient effort made to ensure that the contact is sufficient for children to be able to

maintain meaningful relationships with their non-resident parents, who are of course

overwhelmingly fathers. The default arrangements recommended by most lawyers or

solicitors typically involve ‘every other weekend’ visits, rather than arrangements that

allow non resident fathers to really be involved in their children’s lives. Furthermore,

reasoned discussion about the potential benefits of greater involvement by non resident

parents has been drowned out by poisonous rhetoric from groups and individuals mired in

gendered concerns about fairness for parents rather than children’s best interests. On the

other hand, as we have made clear in the previous section, many innovative practices and

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

programmes have been developed over the last few decades as increasing numbers of

professionals have come to recognise the importance of promoting continued

relationships between children and both of their separating parents. These trends augur

well for the future.

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Note 1

For examples of parenting plan models, see Alaska Court System, Model Parenting

Agreement, www.state.ak.us/courts/forms/dr-475.pdf; American Academy of

Matrimonial Lawyers, Model for a Parenting Plan; State Bar of Arizona, Model Parenting

Time Plans—for Parent/Child Access,

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/Pdf/Parenting_Time_Plan_Final.pdf; Association of

Family and Conciliation Courts, Planning for Shared Parenting, www.afccnet.org;

[email protected] ( for research annotated schedules.)

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

REFERENCES

Allen, S .M. & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and

behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of

Marriage & Family, 61, 199-212.

Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and

empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23-38.

Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269-1287.

Amato, P. R. & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and

family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family 64, 703-716.

Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J.G. (1999). Non-resident fathers and children's well-being: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557-573.

Amato, P.R., & Rezac, S. (1994). Contact with residential parents, inter-parental conflict,

and children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 191-207.

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child

abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578-599.

Aquilino, W. S. (1996). The life course of children born to unmarried mothers:

Childhood living arrangements and young adult outcomes. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 58, 293-310.

Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D.A. (1996). Does mandatory divorce education for parents

work? A six-month outcome evaluation. Family & Conciliation Courts Review,

34, 60-81.

Babcock, J. C., Costa, D. M., Green, C.E., & Eckhardt, C.I. (2004). What situations

induce intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the Proximal

Antecedents to Violent Episodes (PAVE) Scale. Journal of Family Psychology,

18, 433-442.

Bacon, B. L. & McKenzie, B. (2004). Parent education after separation/divorce: Impact

of the level of parental conflict on outcomes. Family Court Review, 42, 85-98.

Baris, M. A., Coates, C. A., Duvall, B. B., Johnson, L. T., & La Cross, E. R. (2001).

Working with high conflict families of divorce: A guide for professionals. New

York: Jason Aronson.

Bauserman, R.. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody

arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 91-102.

Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M. & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change

and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487-498.

Booth, A., & Amato, P.R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce

well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 197-212.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New

York: Basic Books.

Braver, S. L., & O’Connell, E. (1998). Divorced dads: Shattering the myths. New York:

Tarcher, Putnam.

Buchanan, C.M, Maccoby, E.E., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1991). Caught between parents:

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1029.

Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthong, C., Pemberton, S., Gerard, J. &

Barber, B. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and youth problem behaviors: A

two-sample replication study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 119-134.

Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioural

outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137-154.

Clarke-Stewart, A. & Brentano, C. (2006). Divorce: Causes and consequences. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father custody and contact

for the psychological well-being of school-age children. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 17, 239-270.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A., Vandell, D.L., McCartney, K., Owen, M.T., & Booth, C. (2000).

Effects of parental separation and divorce on very young children. Journal of

Family Psychology, 13, 304-326.

Coates, C. A., Deutsch, R., Starnes, H., Sullivan, M. J., & Sydlik, B. (2004). Parenting

coordination for high-conflict families. Family Court Review, 42, 246- .

Coley, R. L., & Medeiros, B. L. (2007). Reciprocal longitudinal relations between

nonresident father involvement and adolescent delinquency. Child Development,

78, 132-147.

Cowdery, R.S. & Knudson-Martin, C. (2005). The construction of motherhood: Tasks,

relational connection, and gender equality. Family Relations, 54 (3), 335-345.

Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Raymond, J. (2004). Fathers in family

context: Effects of marital quality and marital conflict. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The

role of the father in child development (Fourth edition; pp. 196-221). Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

Cummings, E. M., & O’Reilly, A. W. (1997). Fathers in family context: Effects of

marital quality on child adjustment. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father

in child development (Third edition, pp. 49-65). New York: Wiley.

DeWolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-

analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68,

571-591.

Dunn, J., Davies, L., O’Connor, T., & Sturgess, W. (2001). Family lives and friendships:

The perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and two-parent families.

Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 272-287.

Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T.G. & Bridges, L. (2004). Children’s perspectives on

their relationships with their nonresident fathers: influences, outcomes and

implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 553-566.

Ellis, D. & Anderson, D. Y. (2003). The impact of participation in a parent education

program for divorcing parents on the use of court resources: An evaluation study.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 169-187.

Emery, R. E. (1998). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. (2nd Edition).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fabricius, W.V. & Hall, J. (2000). Young adults’ perspectives on divorce: Living

arrangements. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 446-461.

Fagan, J., & Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement.

Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020-1043.

Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (In press). Father involvement and young adult outcomes:

The differential contributions of divorce and gender. Family Court Review.

Flory, B. E., Dunn, J., Berg-Weger, M., & Milstead, M. (2001). An exploratory study of

supervised access and custody exchange services. Family Court Review, 39, 469-

Friedman, M. (2004). The so-called high-conflict couple: A closer look. American

Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 101-117.

Greenberg, M. T., Cicchetti, D., & Cummings, E. M. (Eds.) (1990). Attachment in the

preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Greif, G. (1997). Out of touch: when parents and children lose contact after divorce.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Grych, J. H. (2005). Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child maladjustment:

Implications for the development of prevention programs. Family Court Review,

43, 97-108.

Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (2006). AFCC Task Force on Parenting

Coordination. Family Court Review, 44(1), 164-181.

Haine, R.A., Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., Tein, J-U., & Dawson-McClure, S. R.

(2003). Changing the legacy of divorce: Evidence from prevention programs and

future directions. Family Relations, 52, 397-405.

Heinicke, C. (1956). Some effects of separating two-year-old children from their parents:

A comparative study. Human Relations, 9, 105-176.

Heinicke, C., & Westheimer, I. (1966). Brief separations. New York: International

Universities Press.

Hetherington, E.M. (Ed.) (1999). Should we stay together for the sake of the children?

In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and

remarriage (pp. 93-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters? What does

not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and

children's adjustment. American Psychologist, 53, 167-184.

Hetherington, E.M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered.

New York: Norton.

Holden, G. W., Geffner, R., & Jouriles E. W. (Eds.) (1998). Children exposed to family

violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (in press). Custody disputes

involving allegations of domestic violence: The need for differentiated

approaches to parenting plans. Family Court Review.

Johnson, M. P. (2005). Apples and organs in child custody disputes: Intimate terrorism

vs. situational couple violence. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 43-52.

Johnson, M. P. & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and

situational couple violence: Findings from the National violence against women

survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.

Johnson, T. (1994). Analysis of Santa Clara County, CA case files. Unpublished

dissertation.

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-conflict divorce. The Future of Children, 4, 165-182.

Johnston, J.R. & Campbell, L. (1993). A clinical typology of interparental violence in

disputed-custody divorces. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 190-199.

Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann, J. (1989). Ongoing post-divorce conflict in

families contesting custody: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent

access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 576-592.

Johnston, J.R., & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child: A developmental

approach to understanding and helping children of conflict and violent

divorce. New York: Free Press.

Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W., Vincent, J. P., & Mahoney, A. (1996).

Physical violence and other forms of interpersonal aggression: Links with

children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 223-234.

Katz, L.F., & Gottman, J.M. (1993). Patterns of marital conflict predict children’s

internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 29, 940-

950.

Kelly, J. B. (1982). Divorce: The adult experience. In B. Wolman and G. Stricker

(Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kelly, J. B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade

review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 39,

963-973.

Kelly, J. (2002). Psychological and legal interventions for parents and children in custody

and access disputes: Current research and practice. Virginia Journal of Social

Policy and Law, 10, 129-163.

Kelly, J. (2003). Parents with enduring child disputes: Multiple pathways to enduring

disputes. Journal of Family Studies, 9, 37-50. (Australia)

Kelly, J. B. (2004). Family mediation research: Is there support for the field? Conflict

Resolution Quarterly, 22, 3-35.

Kelly, J. B. (2005). Developing beneficial parenting plan models for children following

separation and divorce. Journal of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,

19, 237-254.

Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce:

Insights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process, 46, 35-52.

Kelly, J. B. (2008). Training for the parenting coordinator role. Journal of Child

Custody.

Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R.E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and

resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352-362.

Kelly, J. B. & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of domestic

violence: Research updates and implications for interventions. Family Court

Review.

Kelly, J. B. & Johnston, J. R. (2005). Commentary on Tippins and Whitmann’s

“Empirical and ethical problems with custody recommendations: A call for

clinical humility and judicial vigilance”. Family Court Review, 4, 233-241.

Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child development research to make

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

appropriate custody and access decisions for young children. Family and

Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 297-311.

Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Developmental issues in relocation cases involving

young children: when, whether, and how? Journal of Family Research, 17, 193-

205.

King, V., & Heard, H.E. (1999). Nonresident father visitation, parental conflict, and

mother’s satisfaction: What’s best for child well-being? Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 61, 385-396.

Kline, M., Johnston, J., & Tschann, J. (1990). The long shadow of marital conflict:

A model of children’s postdivorce adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 53, 297-309.

Lamb, M. E. (1997). The development of father-infant relationships. In M. E. Lamb

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Third edition; pp. 104-120;

332-342). New York: Wiley.

Lamb, M. E. (1999). Non-custodial fathers and their impact on the children of divorce.

In R. A. Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds.), The post-divorce family: Research and

policy issues (pp. 105-125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, M. E. (2002a). Infant-father attachments and their impact on child

development. In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father

involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 93-117). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E. (2002b). Placing children’s interests first: Developmentally appropriate

parenting plans. The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 10, 98-119.

Lamb, M. E. (in press). Improving the quality of parent-child contact in separating

families. In M. Maclean (Ed.), Contact between children and separated parents.

Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Lamb, M. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Teti, D. M. (2002). Development in infancy (Fourth

Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lamb, M E., & Kelly, J. B. (2001). Using the empirical literature to guide the

development of parenting plans for young children: A rejoinder to Solomon and

Biringen. Family Courts Review, 39, 365-371.

Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2004). The development and significance of father-child

relationships in two-parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father

in child development (Fourth edition; pp. 272-306). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons, 2004.

Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2005). The role of parent-child relationships in child

development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science:

An advanced textbook (Fifth edition; pp. 429 - 468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 2005.

Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Thompson, R. A. (1997). The effects of divorce and

custody arrangements on children’s behavior, development, and adjustment.

Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 393-404.

Lamb, M. E., Thompson, R. A., Gardner, W. P., & Charnov, E. L. (1985). Infant-mother

attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Laumann-Billings, L, & Emery, RE. (2000). Distress among young adults in divorced

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 671-687.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal

dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLanahan, S.S. (1999). Father absence and the welfare of children. In E.M.

Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp.

117-146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,

what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLanahan, S. S., & Teitler, J. (1999). The consequences of father absence. In M.E.

Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families. (pp.

83-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McNeal, C., & Amato, P. R. (1998). Parents' marital violence: Long-term consequences

for children. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 123-139.

Menning, C. L. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ involvement and adolescents’ smoking.

Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 47, 32-46.

Nord, C., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s

schools. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,

Washington, D.C. 20208-5574.

Parke, R. (1996). Fatherhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pedro-Carroll, J., Nakhnikian, E., & Montes, G. (2001). Assisting children through

transition: Helping parents protect their children from the toxic effects of ongoing

conflict in the aftermath of divorce. Family Court Review, 39, 377-

Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. (2004). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and

consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development

(Fourth edition, pp. 222-271). New York: Wiley.

Pruett, M. K., Williams, T. Y., Insabella, G., & Little, T. D. (2003). Family and legal

indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children.

Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 169-180.

Pruett, M. K., Insabella, G. M., & Gustafson, K. (2005). The Collaborative Divorce

Project: A court-based intervention for separating parents with young children.

Family Courts Review, 43, 38-51.

Robertson, J., & Robertson, J. (1971). Young children in brief separation: A fresh look.

Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 26, 264-315.

Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2005). Divorce-related variables as predictors of young

adults’ retrospective fathering reports. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44,

145-163.

Simons, R.L. and Associates (1996). Understanding differences between divorced and

intact families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Simons, R.L., Lin, K.H., Gordon, L.C., Conger, R.D., & Lorenz, F.O. (1999). Explaining

the higher incidence of adjustment problems among children of divorce compared

with those in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 1020-

1033.

Smart, C. (2002). From children’s shoes to children’s voices. Family Court Review, 40,

307-319.

Smart, C. & Neale, B. (2000). “It’s my life too” – Children’s perspectives on post-

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

divorce parenting. Family Law, March, 163-169. (England)

Smith, A.B., & Gallop, M. M. (2001). What children think separating parents should

know. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 23-31.

Smyth, B. M. (2004). Parent-child contact schedules after divorce. Family Matters, 69,

32-43. (Australia Institute of Family Studies, Australia)

Smyth, B. M., & Chisholm, R. (2006). Exploring options for parental care of children

following separation: A primer for family law specialists. Australian Journal of

Family Law, 20, 193-218.

Solomon, J., & Biringen, Z. (2001). Another look at the developmental research:

Commentary on Kelly and Lamb’s “Using child development research to make

appropriate custody and access decisions for young children.” Family Courts

Review, 39, 355-364.

Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999a). The development of attachment in separated and

divorced families: Effects of overnight visitation, parent, and couple variables.

Attachment and Human Development, 1, 2-33.

Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999b). The effects of overnight visitation in divorced and

separated families: A longitudinal follow-up. In J. Solomon & C. George (Eds.),

Attachment disorganization (pp. 243-264). New York: Guilford.

Sternberg, K. J. (1997). Fathers, the missing parents in research on family violence. In

M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (Third edition, pp.

284-308; 392-397). New York: Wiley.

Sternberg, K. J., & Lamb, M. E. (1999). Violent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed), Parenting

and child development in “nontraditional” families (pp. 305-325). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Understanding domestic

violence and its effects: Making sense of divergent reports and perspectives. In

G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. W. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to family

violence (pp. 121-156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stets, J. & Straus, M. (1992). The marriage license as a hitting license. Physical violence

in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (2006). Hostility and withdrawal

in marital conflict: Effects on parental emotional unavailability and inconsistent

discipline. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 227-238.

Thompson, R. A. (2006). Early sociopersonality development. In W. Damon, R. A.

Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child development, Volume 3.

Social, emotional, and personality development (Sixth Edition). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.

Thompson, R. A., & Laible, D.J. (1999). Noncustodial parents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.),

Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families (pp. 103-123).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tippins, T.M. & Wittmann, J. P. (2005). Empirical and ethical problems with custody

recommendations: A call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance. Family

Court Review, 43,

Trinder, L. & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Measuring up? The relationship between correlates of

children’s adjustment and both family law and policy in England. Louisiana Law

In R. M. Galazter-Levy, J. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy. (2009). The scientific basis of child custody

decisions. (Second edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (pp. 187-214)

Review, 65, 1509-1537.

Van lJzendoorn, M. H., & DeWolff, M. S. (1997). In search of the absent father—Meta-

analyses of infant-father attachment: A rejoinder to our discussants. Child

Development, 68, 604-609.

Vandewater, E. & Lansford, J. (1998). Influences of family structure and parental

conflict on children’s well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323-330.

Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope

with divorce. NY: Basic Books.

Warshak, R.A. (2000). Blanket restrictions: Overnight contact between parents and

young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 422-445.

Woodward, L., Ferguson, D.M., & Belsky, J. (2000). Timing of parental separation and

attachment to parents in adolescence: Results of a prospective study from birth to

age 16. Journal of Marriage & Family, 62, 162-174.

Yarrow, L. J. (1963). Research in dimensions of early maternal care. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 9, 101-114.

Yarrow, L. J., & Goodwin, M. (1973). The immediate impact of separation: Reactions of

infants to a change in mother figures. In L. J. Stone, H. T. Smith, & L. B.

Murphy (Eds.) The competent infant (pp. 1032-1040). New York: Basic Books.