Children’s Contact With Fathers Who Never Co-Resided With Them and Father

Abstract

Using a sample of 868 unmarried fathers who did not live with their children from birth to age 9, this study focused on the association between patterns of father–child contact during infancy and early and middle childhood and children’s perceptions of their relationship with the father at age 9. Children perceived significantly better quality relationships with fathers at age 9 when they had regular contact with fathers during infancy and early and middle childhood, than fathers who never saw their children. Children who no longer saw their fathers after infancy perceived more negative relationship quality at age 9. Contact with fathers at ages 1 and 5 were associated with better quality relationships even if there was no contact at age 9. Implications for policy and programs are discussed.

Keywords

early childhood fathers’ contact father–child relationship fragile families and child well-being middle childhood nonresident fathers

Introduction

About 26% of children in the United States did not reside with their biological fathers in 2019 (Anderson et al., 2022). These statistics included children who did not live with fathers because their parents were married but separated or divorced, never married, and children who lived with adoptive parents. Although many nonresident biological fathers are involved with their children and see them on a regular basis, a substantial number of fathers have no contact with their children. Data from the National Survey of Family Growth (2008) indicated that 17% of nonresident fathers did not visit their children in the past year. Low-income nonresident fathers are disproportionately less likely to be involved with their children or support them financially (Office of Child Support Enforcement, 2021). Researchers have studied extensively the effects of divorce on fathers’ involvement with children and on father–child relationships (Albertini & Garriga, 2011; de Graaf & Fokkema, 2007; Kalmijn, 2013), and to a lesser extent the effects of dissolution of non-marital unions on father involvement (Zilincikova & Albertini, 2022). Few studies have examined what happens to father–child relationships when unmarried mothers and fathers never resided together (Van Spijker et al., 2022). Yet, a substantial number of parents fall into this category. Data from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study found that nearly one-quarter of biological unmarried fathers did not reside with the mother of their children or their children at any time at ages 1, 3, 5, and 9 (Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, 2018).

Researchers have also neglected the fact that nonresident fathers’ involvement with children is not a static phenomenon. Depending on fathers’ circumstances and relationships with mothers, fathers may be uninvolved with children at one point in time, but then become more involved at a later time, or they may be involved with children at one point in time but then visit their children seldomly at a later time. Using data from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing study (FFCW), Ryan et al. (2008) found considerable variation in patterns of unmarried fathers’ self-reported involvement with children over time. Some fathers had regular contact with their children, but many did not, and a substantial portion of fathers showed increasing or decreasing patterns of involvement with children (Ryan et al., 2008). The current study asks how children perceive their relationship with the unmarried, nonresident father (with whom they never lived at ages 1, 3, 5, and 9) when the man always had contact with his child; when he was not involved with the child, but then started to see the child at a later time; and when the man had contact but stopped seeing his child. These questions are important to address given the proliferation of fatherhood programs assisting uninvolved or low-involved fathers to become more engaged with children (Pearson & Wildfeuer, 2022).

Theoretical Considerations

Father involvement has been defined in many ways. Most definitions include some link to Lamb et al.’s (1985; see also Lamb et al., 1987) typology that includes fathers’ direct engagement with children, accessibility to children, and responsibility for children. Accessibility is defined as the time the father is available to the child whether or not he is interacting directly with the child. Engagement refers to father–child shared interactions, and responsibility refers to a father’s organizing and planning activities and provision of resources to a child. Recent definitions of father involvement have included references to engagement, warmth and responsiveness, control, and indirect care (Pleck, 2010). Researchers have suggested that contact is interchangeable with accessibility when applied to nonresident fathers (Choi et al., 2014; Shannon et al., 2009). Researchers have argued also that father–child relationship quality should be incorporated into models of parenting (Palkovitz, 2002).

Relatively few studies have examined changing patterns of nonresident father involvement with children over time. Using data from the 1979 to 2002 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and the 1986 to 2002 Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Cheadle et al. (2010) found that, over a period of 14 years, about two-thirds of nonresident fathers were consistently either highly involved or rarely involved in their children’s lives, approximately 23% of fathers exhibited a clear pattern of declining contact, and about 8% of fathers showed a pattern of increasing contact. Using Future of Families and Child Wellbeing data, Carlson et al. (2008) found that 87% of nonresident fathers ever saw the child at age 1 year, 71% ever saw the child between ages 1 and 3, and 63% ever saw the child between ages 3 and 5, indicating a pattern of declining involvement of nonresident fathers with children.

A shortcoming of these studies is that they do not distinguish among nonresident fathers who are separated, divorced, or never married, and they do not distinguish among fathers who lived with their children at some point in time with fathers who never lived with the child. Nock (1995) has suggested that the absence of formally recognized status makes unmarried unions different from married unions. The legal events associated with marriage serve as forces that hold the relationship together. Because marriage is harder to end and is supported by stronger social norms, married individuals are more likely to work out relationship problems, including staying involved with children following a relationship break-up. Differences in human capital between previously married and never married fathers may also influence fathers’ involvement after relationship dissolution (Osborne, 2002). Indicators of human capital include years of education, personality traits, work habits, and occupational skills. Previously married fathers tend to have greater human capital than never married fathers. Men with greater human capital may have more to offer as a potential parent, including the provision of a stimulating home environment and support for children’s cognitive development. For these reasons, it is important to disaggregate father–mother relationships (divorced vs. never married, and co-resided with child vs. never lived with child) when examining nonresident fathers’ involvement with children.

For the most part, researchers have found that higher levels of nonresident father contact with children are related to higher quality father–child relationships. Using data from a sample of 1149 adolescents in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health who have both a resident stepfather and a nonresident biological father, King (2006) found that adolescents who reported being close to nonresident biological fathers had more contact with them. In a study of 450 low-income, never married, nonresident fathers, researchers found positive associations between frequency of father–child contact and father–child closeness among preschool-age, school-age, and adolescent children (Dyer et al., 2017). Longitudinal research using Future of Families and Child Wellbeing data found that more nonresident father involvement at age 1 was associated with child reports of better father–child relationships at age 9 (Jessee & Adamsons, 2018). A recent systematic review of incarcerated fathers found that frequency of contact with children was positively associated with fathers’ perceptions of relationship quality with children (Venema et al., 2022). The associations between changing patterns of unmarried, nonresident father involvement with children and children’s perceptions of their relationships with fathers have rarely been studied (Maslauskaitė & Tereškinas, 2020).

Many factors in addition to father–child contact may influence the quality of unmarried, nonresident fathers’ relationships with their children, including but not limited to fathers’ establishment of paternity, maternal gatekeeping, and fathers’ human capital. These factors are salient influences on father–child relationships but only if fathers have contact with their children. Researchers have acknowledged that the amount of time that individuals spend together does not itself indicate the subjective experience of that time. However, time is a productive resource “whose use is necessary for the creation of subjective meanings” (Kingston & Nock, 1987, p. 391). Studies suggest that fathers’ involvement during the transition to parenthood is critical for fathers’ attachment bonds with children (Cabrera, 2020). Being involved early affords the father the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, which may strengthen his commitment and engagement over time. Support for this hypothesis can be found in recent studies of co-residing fathers and mothers indicating that the association between amount of parental leave taken by fathers and father–infant bonding is mediated by weekly hours spent on childcare (Schaber et al., 2021). Palkovitz (2002) has suggested that fathering during the transition to parenthood exerts a “positive developmental pull” on men to continue being involved with the children throughout childhood (infancy and early and middle childhood). These studies suggest that unmarried, nonresident fathers who have regular contact with the child during infancy (birth to age 1), early childhood (ages 1–5), and middle childhood (age 6–12) are more likely to have better quality relationships with children in later years than fathers who do not have regular contact with children. The current study hypothesizes the following:

H1:

Children who never co-resided with their fathers during infancy and early and middle childhood will report higher quality relationships with fathers during middle childhood when fathers had regular contact with them during those stages of childhood.

Disruptions in fathers’ involvement with very young children can have long-term negative effects on father–child relationships during later years. Divorce studies have indicated that marriage break-ups are associated with lower quality father–child relationships (Zill et al., 1993). Kalmijn (2013) has demonstrated that when fathers divorce at a later age of the child, the negative effect of divorce is reduced, with the greatest negative effects occurring during early childhood. In light of studies showing that reduced contact with fathers is a significant predictor of lower quality father–child relationships post-divorce (Peters & Ehrenberg, 2008), one might expect that unmarried, nonresident fathers’ relationships with children will be lower when fathers discontinue contact with children at some point during early or middle childhood.

H2:

Children who never co-resided with their fathers during infancy and early and middle childhood will report lower quality relationships with fathers during middle childhood when fathers had contact with them during the early years (e.g., infants) but stopped seeing them at some point during the preschool or middle childhood years.

There are some fathers who have little to no involvement with their infants, but then become involved with them in later years. Men may mature as their children get older, and when this happens, they may seek to become involved with the child. In other instances, mothers may re-evaluate their efforts to restrict fathers’ access to children and, as such, facilitate the man’s involvement (Fagan & Cherson, 2017). There is some evidence to suggest that father–child relationships can improve when fathers start to become involved with children despite not seeing them at earlier ages. Intervention studies have shown that father–child relationships can improve even when fathers were uninvolved with children prior to program participation (Kim & Jang, 2022). Prison studies have also shown that some father–child relationships improve when fathers are incarcerated, presumably because fathers re-evaluated their parenting role in prison (Charles et al., 2019; Venema et al., 2022). In light of these studies, the current study hypothesizes the following:

H3:

Children who never co-resided with their fathers during infancy and early and middle childhood will report better quality relationships with their fathers during middle childhood when they start to have contact with fathers during the preschool or middle childhood years, despite not having contact at earlier ages (e.g., infancy).

Current Study

The focus of the current study is on fathers who never co-resided with their children during infancy and early and middle childhood. This study examines the association between unmarried, nonresident fathers’ contact with children during infancy, early childhood, and middle childhood and children’s perceptions of relationship quality with fathers at age 9. Driscoll and Pianta’s (2011) framework for parent–child relationship quality is used. This framework suggests representations of quality are best described as closeness and conflict. Only closeness is examined in the current study. Closeness is defined as warmth, affection, and open communication (see also Parke, 1981). Time spent with the child and attending children’s activities are also important indicators of father–child relationship quality (Gold et al., 2020).

Compared with fathers who no contact with children at ages 1, 5, and 9, the current study hypothesizes that fathers who see their children regularly at ages 1, 5, and 9 will have better quality relationships with children at age 9. The current study also hypothesizes a better quality relationship between fathers and children at age 9 when fathers start to have contact with children during the preschool or middle childhood years, despite not having contact at earlier ages (e.g., infancy). A lower quality relationship is hypothesized when fathers had contact with children during the early years (e.g., infants) but stopped seeing them at some point during the preschool or middle childhood years.

The current study includes statistical controls for child sex at birth, fathers’ race/ethnicity, father’s education, household poverty, mothers’ marriage or cohabitation with a new partner, father’s paternity establishment, father’s pregnancy wantedness, and maternal gatekeeping. At the child-level, we control for child sex at birth, as some studies report greater father investment with sons than with daughters (Raley & Bianchi, 2006). At the parent level, fathers’ race/ethnicity and education are well-known predictors of parenting behaviors and engagement (Cabrera et al., 2014). For example, parental education level consistently predicts father involvement with children across ages and ethnicities (Cabrera et al., 2011). Researchers have also found that nonresident fathers’ involvement with children is significantly reduced when fathers or mothers establish new romantic or marital relationships (Fagan et al., 2009). Father’s pregnancy wantedness is an important attitudinal variable when expecting a child (Adamsons, 2013; Sayler et al., 2021) and is closely tied to the quality of the father’s relationship with the mother (Hohmann-Marriott, 2009). Qualitative researchers have found that fathers view paternity establishment as integral to their understanding of what it means to be a responsible father (Rebman et al., 2018). Maternal gatekeeping has been found to predict father–child relationship quality (Fischer et al., 2023).

Method

This study used the FFCW dataset that followed a cohort of nearly 5000 children born in the U. S. between 1998 and 2000 (McLanahan & Garfinkel, 2000). The sampling approach resulted in a large number of Black, Hispanic, and low-income families and oversampled births to unmarried couples (McLanahan & Garfinkel, 2000). Fathers and mothers were interviewed shortly after the birth of their focal child (baseline) and again when children were 1 (Y1), 3 (Y3), 5 (Y5), 9 (Y9), and 15 (Y15) years of age. Children were interviewed at Y9 and Y15. The FFCW study included 3710 unwed couples and 1187 married couples at baseline. The analytic sample in the present study was limited to cases in which the child lived with the biological mother but not the biological father at Y1, Y3, Y5, and Y9. The analytic sample size was 868 cases. The author of this paper received institutional committee approval for this study.

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 shows that most fathers in the analytic sample (about 71%) completed high school or less. The majority of fathers were Black (65.2%), followed by Hispanic (19%), non-Hispanic White (13.7%), and Other (2%). The mean age of fathers was about 26 years, and the mean age of mothers was about 24 years. On average father’s total household income was $29,777 per year at Y1. About 47% of children were reported to be boys at birth.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics and descriptives for study variables (N = 868).

Variable	n	%	M	SD
Child is a boy	409	47.1
Father’s age Y1			25.82	6.75
Mother’s age Y1			23.69	5.47
Father’ education
Less high school	289	33.3
High school/equivalent	320	36.9
Some college/technical	173	19.9
College graduate	22	2.5
Missing	64	7.4
Father’s household income Y1			$29,777	$31,442
Race/ethnicity
Black	566	65.2
Non-Hispanic White	119	13.7
Hispanic	165	19.0
Other	17	2.0
Missing	1	1.0
Maternal gatekeeping (yes)	127	14.6
Missing	39	4.5
Paternity establishment (yes)	444	51.2
Missing	45	5.2
F not want pregnancy	144	16.6
Missing	306	35.3
M remarried Y9	133	38.4
M cohabit Y9	164	18.4
F cohabit or remarry Y9	333	38,4
Missing	212	24.4
F-C contact variables
YYY	175	20.2
YYN	120	13.8
YNN	159	18.3
YNY	56	6.5
NNY	39	4.5
NYY	36	4.1
NYN	40	4.6
NNN	231	26.6
Missing contact data	12	1.4

Notes: F = father. C = child. M = mother. To make it easier to read the table, the contact categories are designated by “yeses” (Y) and “noes” (No): YYY = F has contact Y1, Y5, Y9. YYN = F has contact Y1, Y5, not Y9. YNN = F has contact Y1, not Y5, Y9. YNY = F has contact Y1, not Y5, see C Y9. NNY = F no contact Y1, Y5, see C Y9. NYY = F no contact Y1, see C Y 5, Y9. NYN = F no contact Y1, see C Y5, not Y9. NNN = F no contact Y1, Y5, Y9.

Measures

Father–Child Relationship Quality

Father–child relationship quality at Y9 was measured with the focal child’s response to six questions. Children were asked to think about their relationship with the biological father when responding to items. Two items were obtained from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH): “How close do you feel with your dad?” (1 = not very close to 4 = extremely close) and “How well do you and your dad share ideas or talk about things that matter” (1 = not very well to 4 = extremely well). These items assess father–child closeness and open communication and have been shown to be strong markers of the quality of parent–child relationships (Bandy & Moore, 2008). Four items asked the child to indicate the degree which the father includes you in important decisions, listens to your side of an argument, spends enough time with you, and misses events or activities that are important to you. These items are measured on a scale from 0 = never to 3 = always and were recoded to a scale from 1 to 4. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a better factor solution when “activities that are important to you” was omitted. The eigenvalue for the five remaining items was 2.45 and explained 49.08% of the variance. A latent variable consisting of the five items was used in the multivariate analyses. This variable is referred to as father–child (F-C) relationship quality.

Father–Child Contact

Father–child contact was measured with one item that asked mothers at Y1, Y5, and Y9. “During the past 30 days, how often has the father seen his child?” Responses ranged from 0 to 30 days. Responses were recoded to a dichotomous variable whereby 0 = no contact and 1 = any contact. The following variables were then constructed: no contact at any time at Y1, Y5, and Y9 (reference group); always had contact at Y1, Y5, and Y9; contact at Y1 but not Y5 or Y9; contact at Y1 and Y5 but not Y9; contact at Y1 no contact at Y5 contact at Y9; no contact at Y1 but contact at Y5 and Y9; no contact at Y1 contact at Y5 no contact Y9; and no contact at Y1 and Y5 but contact at Y9.

Controls

To isolate the associations between the father–child contact variables and F-C relationship quality, I controlled for father race/ethnicity, which was measured at baseline with a constructed measure based on the combined father and mother report indicating whether the father was Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic, or Other race/ethnicity (includes Asian American and American Indian). Father education was measured at Y9 with an FFCW constructed measure (1 = less than a high school diploma, 2 = high school diploma, 3 = some college or technical school, 4 = graduated college or attended graduate school). Child sex assigned at birth was controlled (1 = girl, 0 = boy).

Control for household poverty was assessed at Y5. Poverty was based on mothers’ reports of total household income and size. Maternal reports of total household income in the prior 12 months were divided by the official poverty threshold for the year in which the interview was conducted. The FFCW constructed variable at Y5 included five poverty categories: 1 = 0–49% of the poverty line; 2 = 50–99%; 3 = 100–199%; 4 = 200–299%; 5 = 300%+. Thus, high scores on these measures indicated low poverty status. Mothers were asked one question about marriage to a new partner other than the father (1 = yes 1, 0 = no) and one question about cohabiting with a new partner (1 = yes, 0 = no) at Y9. Mothers were also asked if fathers were living with or married to a new partner (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Paternity establishment was measured with one item that asked mothers at Y9 whether or not father’s legal paternity had been established (1 = yes, 0 = no). Data from the baseline father survey were used to assess pregnancy wantedness. Fathers were asked: “When you found out [Baby’s Mother] was pregnant, did you think about having an abortion?” FFCW researchers who have used this measure suggest that responses to this question provide insight into parent’s level of pregnancy wantedness as wanted pregnancies would not be likely to be considered for an abortion (Guterman, 2015). Maternal gatekeeping was assessed with one item that asked mothers at Y9 if they have ever refused to allow the father to see his child (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were first calculated for all study variables. Next, bias analyses were conducted to determine if children who did not complete the survey at Y9 (i.e., did not respond to items about their relationship with fathers) differed from the analytic sample. Next, bivariate analyses for all study variables were calculated using t-tests and Chi-square tests.

Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS software was used to test predictors of youth perceptions of father–child relationship. AMOS is SEM software used to test a set of regression equations simultaneously. The latent variable, F-C relationship quality, was regressed on the constructed contact variables (never had contact was the reference group) and control variables. Control variables included father’s race/ethnicity, father’s education, mother’s household poverty at Y5, sex of child at birth, mother remarried at Y9, mother cohabiting with a new partner at Y9, father lives with or married to a new partner at Y9, maternal gatekeeping Y9, paternity establishment, and pregnancy wantedness.

AMOS uses full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation to handle missing data. FIML produces unbiased parameter estimates and standard errors. Three fit statistics were used in the path analysis: chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). These fits statistics were selected because they are the least affected indices by estimation technique and sample size under conditions of multivariate normality, especially with large sample sizes (Cangur & Ercan, 2015). Little (2013) provides the following guidelines for the CFI and RMSEA(CFI: <.85 is poor fit, .85–.90 is mediocre, and >.90 is acceptable; RMSEA: >.10 is poor, .10–.08 is mediocre, and <.08 is acceptable). Researchers have also indicated that negative model Chi-square results can be discounted when other model fit measures such as CFI and RMSEA support the model and when the sample size is reasonable (Little, 2013). Betas were used to indicate effect sizes in the path analysis. Acock (2014) suggests that β < .2 is considered weak, .2 < β < .5 is moderate, and β > .5 is strong.

Missing Data Analyses

Little’s (2013) test showed that the data were not missing completely at random (χ²[2] = 39.22, p = .046). Race/ethnicity, which was missing 1 case, was significantly associated with missingness for all 5 F-C relationship quality items at Y9 (cases missing = 382; χ²[4] range from 10.38 to 12.08, ps = .007 to .016). Data were more likely to be missing for Hispanic children versus Black, White, and Other race children.

Data Availability

Data for this study are available from the FFCW project at Princeton University at https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu. The quantitative analytic methods (i.e., SPSS syntax code) are available from the author of this paper. The work associated with this study has not been preregistered.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the number and percentage of fathers in each contact group. The largest group of fathers is those who never had contact with children at Y1, Y5, and Y9 (27%). About 20% of fathers had regular contact with children at all three waves of data. A fairly substantially percentage of fathers had contact with their children at Y1 but not at Y5 and Y9 (18%). The smallest percentages were those men who had no contact at Y1 and either had contact or did not have contact at later waves. These percentages ranged from 4.1% to 4.6% of fathers.

The descriptives for control variables revealed that slightly more than half of fathers (51%) established paternity and 17% of fathers indicated at baseline that they did not want the pregnancy. More than half of mothers were remarried or cohabiting (57%) at Y9. A smaller percentage of fathers (38%) were either remarried or cohabiting at Y9.

Bivariate Analyses

T-tests were conducted to examine associations between father’s education and contact with children. There was only one significant association between education and contact group. Fathers who had regular contact with children at Y1, Y5, and Y9 had significantly higher education levels than fathers in the other contact groups (t[867] = −2.01, p = .004). Chi-square analyses were used to examine contact group differences by race/ethnicity. There were no significant contact group differences by race/ethnicity.

Multivariate Analyses

The SEM results showed acceptable fit to the data, χ²(df = 82) = 139.91, p < .001; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .028 [90% CI = .019–.036]. Table 2 shows the direct linkages in the SEM. The results partially supported the study hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 states that children will have higher quality relationships with fathers when they consistently see their fathers during early or middle childhood. In support of this hypothesis, children perceived significantly better quality relationships with fathers at age 9 when they had regular contact with fathers at Y1, Y5, and Y9, than fathers who never saw their children (the association between these variables was moderately strong). Additionally, children perceived significantly better quality relationships with fathers at age 9 when their fathers had contact with them at Y1, stopped seeing them at Y5, but again had contact at Y9 (association was weak).

Table 2.

Structural equation modeling parameters predicting child perception of father–child relationship quality at age 9 (N = 868).

Parameter			B	SE	Beta	p
F-C relationship	<---	F education	.05	.05	.05	.292
F-C relationship	<---	F non-Hispanic White	−.07	.11	−.03	.559
F-C relationship	<---	F Hispanic	.02	.10	.01	.855
F-C relationship	<---	Other	.03	.10	.01	.899
F-C relationship	<---	M household poverty at Y5	−.03	.03	−.05	.356
F-C relationship	<---	Sex of C at birth	−.07	.07	−.04	.358
F-C relationship	<---	M remarried at Y9	−.02	.11	−.01	.889
F-C relationship	<---	M cohabit at Y9	−.12	.10	−.06	.227
F-C relationship	<---	F cohabit or remarried at Y9	−.12	.08	−.08	.141
F-C relationship	<---	Maternal gatekeeping at Y9	−.06	.11	−.03	.605
F-C relationship	<---	Paternity establishment	.05	.08	0.3	.571
F-C relationship	<---	F pregnancy wantedness	.01	.10	0.1	.918
F-C relationship	<---	YYY	.47	.12	.24	.000
F-C relationship	<---	YYN	.28	.13	.12	.029
F-C relationship	<---	YNN	−.07	.11	−.04	.529
F-C relationship	<---	YNY	.41	.17	.13	.013
F-C relationship	<---	NYN	.11	.19	.03	.558
F-C relationship	<---	NYY	.37	.20	.10	.060
F-C relationship	<---	NNY	.37	.19	.10	.049

Notes: F = father. C = child. M = mother. To make it easier to read the table, the contact categories are designated by “yeses” (Y) and “noes” (No). YYY = F has contact at Y1, Y5, and Y9. YYN = F has contact at Y1 and Y5, not at Y9. YNN = F has contact at Y1, not at Y5 and Y9. YNY = F has contact at Y1, not at Y5, see C at Y9. NNY = F has no contact at Y1 and Y5, see C at Y9. NYY = F has no contact at Y1, see C at Y5 and Y9. NYN = F has no contact at Y1, see C at Y5, not at Y9. NNN = F has no contact at Y1, Y5, and Y9.

Hypothesis 3 states children will have better quality relationships with fathers when they start seeing their fathers at some point during early or middle childhood, despite not having contact at earlier ages (e.g., infancy). The findings supported hypothesis 3: children perceived significantly better quality relationships with fathers when they had no contact with fathers at Y1 and Y5, but had contact at Y9 (association was weak), than fathers who never saw their children. The association between no contact at Y1, but contact at Y5 and Y9, and F-C relationship quality approached significance (p = .06).

Hypothesis 2 states that children will have lower quality relationships with fathers when they stop seeing their fathers at some point during early or middle childhood. Children did not perceive lower quality relationships with fathers if they stopped seeing them at Y5 and Y9, than children who never saw their fathers. Contrary to hypothesis 2, children reported better relationships when they saw their fathers at Y1 and Y5 but not at Y9. When regular contact with fathers at Y1, Y5, and Y9 was made the reference group, there was a significant negative association between contact with fathers at Y1 but not Y5 and Y9 and F-C relationship quality (B = −.52, SE = .12, Beta = −.26, p < .001, results not shown in a table). That is, children perceived lower quality relationships with fathers when they stopped seeing them at Y5 and Y9, when regular contact with the father was the reference group. This association was moderately strong.

Discussion

Studies have shown that children who have little contact with their nonresident fathers do not feel close to them (e.g., Dennison et al., 2017; King, 2006). However, these studies rarely distinguish between different types of family structures (e.g., divorced and never married). A strength of the current study is that it focuses on a sample of unmarried fathers who did not reside with the children during infancy and early and middle childhood. This subgroup of fathers constituted 17.7% of the total FFCW sample. Findings of the current study indicated that about 40% of consistently nonresident fathers had either regular contact with children during infancy, early childhood, and middle childhood, or they started seeing children regularly after not seeing their infants. However, a large group of fathers (27%) never saw their children.

As might be expected, and as I hypothesized (Hypothesis 1), fathers who had regular contact with children during infancy and early and middle childhood had better quality relationships with children at age 9 than fathers who never saw their children. One of the interesting findings of the current study is that fathers who started to have contact with children during early and middle childhood after a period of not seeing their children during infancy had better quality relationships with their 9-year-olds than fathers who never saw their children (Hypothesis 3). These findings suggest that individuals can alter their trajectories in positive ways. Specifically, lack of contact with infants does not necessarily mean that fathers will have poor quality relationships with their children in later years.

The results of the current study also showed that a temporary interruption in contact with children does not correlate with lower quality relationships with fathers. Children who did not see their children at age 5 but saw them at ages 1 and 9 reported significantly higher quality relationship with fathers than children who never saw their fathers. It is very possible that fathers who had contact with infants formed an attachment bond with the child, and that bond ultimately encouraged the father to reunite with his child at age 9 despite not seeing him/her at age 5. Again, these findings seem to indicate that fathers can alter their parenting trajectory at the end of the preschool period to become an involved parent.

A substantial percentage of fathers (13.8%) had contact with children at ages 1 and 5, but not at age 9. Hypothesis 2 indicated that fathers who stop seeing their children will have lower quality relationships with children. Contrary to expectation, these fathers had better quality relationships with children than men who never saw their children. The take-home message from this finding is that the early years are critical for fathers to develop positive relationships with their children. As noted earlier, the data also revealed that not seeing children during infancy but seeing them during early and middle childhood produced better outcomes than never seeing children. Together, these findings seem to indicate that while contact with children during infancy and early childhood is advantageous, fathers can still alter their parenting trajectory if they were uninvolved with children during infancy.

In contrast to these findings, fathers who had no contact with children at ages 5 and 9 had poorer quality relationships with children when they only saw children as infants (regular contact with children was the reference group in these analyses). Seeing children during the earliest years does not ensure a positive quality relationship with children in later years, especially if fathers only had contact with children for a short period of time (i.e., infancy). These findings highlight the importance of nonresident fathers addressing barriers to non-involvement with children as early as possible, and not waiting until the end of the preschool period or middle childhood to increase or establish contact with their children. This subgroup of fathers and men who never saw children may be at highest risk for low-quality relationship with their children in later years. These fathers may benefit the most from programs to support their involvement with children.

Limitations

The items measuring children’s perceptions of F-C relationship quality have been widely used in research (Bandy & Moore, 2008), but they have not been validated with low-income children. Bias analyses showed that father contact data were more likely to be missing among Hispanic fathers. The findings of the current study may therefore be more applicable to Black, non-Hispanic White, and Other fathers and children. In addition, the dataset only provides snapshots of fathers and children at the time of measurement, thus limiting the researcher’s capacity to capture dynamic relationships and situational changes. For example, children’s perceptions of relationship quality may be influenced by a recent conflict between the child and father that temporarily biases the child’s responses to questions about the father. Despite these limitations, the current study included a larger sample of children and low-income, nonresident fathers than is the case in many other studies. Another possible limitation is that mother–father relationship quality and coparenting support could not be included as controls because parents did not answer questions about their relationship if they did not see one another.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The results of the current study have significant implications for policy makers and practitioners. Specifically, programs and policies targeting low-income, consistently nonresident fathers should be encouraged by the finding that fathers’ contact with children at ages 5 and 9 can have a positive effect on children’s perceptions of relationship quality at age 9 when those same fathers had no contact or intermittent contact with children at ages 1 and 5. Programs should be aware that fathers who have contact during the early years (ages 1 and 5) are more likely to have better relationship quality with children even if they stop seeing the child at age 9. These findings suggest that fathering programs that are successful at helping nonresident fathers to re-connect or increase their connection to children may have longer term benefits on the father–child relationship. Programs that target fathers with infants and preschoolers may have the greatest positive effects on father–child relationships. Home visitation programs, which typically target parents with young children, may be best suited to support nonresident fathers contact with children. Some home visitation programs have successfully implemented specialized fathering initiatives as part of their regular services with mothers (Bellamy et al., 2022).

Two groups of fathers may have the greatest need for fatherhood services: fathers who have never had contact with children or who had contact with infants and then stopped seeing them during early and middle childhood. These fathers may need more intensive services that also include working with mothers to help facilitate fathers’ involvement. Some fathers may have little interest in being involved with their children, but they should be cognizant that this decision may negatively impact their child. Future studies will need to determine if establishing contact with older children (e.g., adolescents) when there was none during infancy and early and middle childhood can result in improved father–child relationships.

Finally, it is important to note that contact with children does not necessarily imply high-quality father–child interactions. Most studies examining the influence of nonresident fathers on children have focused on contact; few studies have examined the quality of their contact. When fathers spend quality time with and are responsive to their children’s needs, a strong family foundation is created that supports children’s later development (McGuire, 2015). Research is needed that examines both quantity and quality of nonresident fathers’ contact with children in relation to father–child relationships.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Data for this study are available from the FFCW project at Princeton University at . The quantitative analytic methods (i.e., SPSS syntax code) are available from the author of this paper. This study was not preregistered.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Standards

The IRB review board at Temple University approved this research (IRB # 22220).

ORCID iD

Jay Fagan

References

Adamsons

(2013). Possible selves and prenatal father involvement. Fathering, 11(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.1103.245

Albertini

Garriga

(2011). The effect of divorce on parent-child contatcs. European Societies, 13(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.483002

Anderson

L. R.

Hemez

P. F.

Kreider

R. M.

(2022). Living arrangements of children 2019. US Census. Report Number P70-174. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p70-174.html

Bandy

Moore

K. A.

(2008). The parent-child relationship: A family strength. Child Trends Publication #. 2008–27. http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.childtrends.org%2Fwpcontent%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FParents-Child-Relation.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.

Bellamy

J. L.

Banman

Harty

J. S.

Mirque-Morales

Jaccard

Guterman

N. B.

(2022). The effect of Dads Matter–HV on father engagement in home visiting services. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 24(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01451-8

Bendheim-Thoman Center for

Research on Child Wellbeing (2018). User’s guide for the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study public data, Year 9. fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf4356/files/year_9_guide.pdf

Cabrera

N. J.

(2020). Father involvement, father-child relationship, and attachment in the early years. Attachment and Human Development, 22(1), 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2019.1589070

Cabrera

N. J.

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Bradley

R. H.

Roggman

(2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6(4), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054

Cabrera

N. J.

Hofferth

S. L.

Chae

(2011). Patterns and predictors of father- infant engagement across race/ethnic groups. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.01.001

10.

Cangur

Ercan

(2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1430453580

11.

Carlson

M. J.

McLanahan

S. S.

Brooks-Gunn

(2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathers’ involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45(2), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0007

12.

Charles

Muentner

Kjellstrand

(2019). Parenting and incarceration: Perspectives on father-child involvement during reentry from prison. Social Service Review, 93(2), 218–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/703446

13.

Cheadle

Amato

King

(2010). Patterns of nonresident father involvement. Demography, 47(1), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0084

14.

Choi

Palmer

R. J.

Pyun

(2014). Three measures of non-resident fathers’ involvement, maternal parenting and child development in low-income single-mother families. Child and Family Social Work, 19(3), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12000

15.

de Graaf

P. M.

Fokkema

(2007). Contacts between divorced and non-divorced parents and their adult children in the Netherlands: An investment perspective. European Sociological Review, 23(2), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcl032

16.

Dennison

Smallbone

Occhipinti

(2017). Understanding how incarceration challenges proximal processes in father-child relationships: Perspectives of imprisoned fathers. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0054-9

17.

Driscoll

Pianta

R. C.

(2011). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of conflict and closeness in parent-child relationships during early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 7, 1–24.

18.

Dyer

W. J.

Kaufman

Fagan

(2017). Father-child closeness and conflict: Validating measures for nonresident fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(8), 1074–1080.

19.

Fagan

Cherson

(2017). Maternal gatekeeping: The associations among facilitation, encouragement and low-income fathers’ engagement with young children. Journal of Family Issues, 38(5), 633–653.

20.

Fagan

Palkovitz

Roy

Farrie

(2009). Pathways to paternal engagement: Longitudinal effects of cumulative risk and resilience on nonresident fathers. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1389–1405.

21.

Fischer

R. A.

Johnson

M. D.

Stertz

A. M.

Sherlock

S. N.

Wiese

B. S.

(2023). How perceived maternal gatekeeping affects fathers: An 8-week study. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001053

22.

Gold

Edin

K. J.

Nelson

T. J.

(2020). Does time with dad in childhood pay off in adolescence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(5), 1587–1605. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12676

23.

Guterman

(2015). Unintended pregnancy as a predictor of child maltreatment. Child abuse and neglect, 48, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.014

24.

Hohmann-Marriott

(2009). The couple context of pregnancy and its effects on prenatal care and birth outcomes. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13(6), 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-009-0467-0

25.

Jessee

Adamsons

(2018). Father involvement and father-child relationship quality. An intergenerational perspective, 18(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2018.1405700

26.

Kalmijn

(2013). Long-term effects of divorce on parent–child relationships: Within-family comparisons of fathers and mothers. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs066. https://matthijskalmijn.nl/onewebmedia/Kalmijn _-_ESR _-_Divorce _and _parent-child _relations.pdf

27.

Kim

Y.-I.

Jang

S. J.

(2022). A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the TYRO Dads program. Family Relations, 72(1), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12641

28.

King

(2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents' relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 910–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00304.x

29.

Kingston

P. W.

Nock

S. L.

(1987). Time together among dual-earner couples. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095358

30.

Lamb

M. E.

Pleck

J. H.

Charnov

E. L.

Levine

J. A.

(1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25(3), 883–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/25.3.883, https://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/stable/3883043

31.

Lamb

M. E.

Pleck

J. H.

Charnov

E. L.

Levine

J. A.

(1987). A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In Lancaster

J. B.

(Ed) Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 111–142). Aldine Publishing Co.

32.

Little

T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

33.

Maslauskaitė

Tereškinas

(2020). Quality of non-resident father-child relationships: Between “caring for” and “caring about”. In Mortelmans

(Ed.), Divorce in europe european studies of population (vol. 21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25838-2_14

34.

McGuire

(2015). Examining a developmental approach to childhood obesity: The fetal and early childhood years: Workshop in brief. The National Academies Press, 2015. Advances in Nutrition , 6(4), 487–488. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.009381

35.

McLanahan

Garfinkel

(2000). The fragile families and child wellbeing study: Questions, design, and a few preliminary results. Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Working Paper # 00-07. https://crcw.princeton.edu/papers.html

36.

Nock

S. L.

(1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues Issues, 16(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251395016001004

37.

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) (2021). FY2020Preliminary data report. HHS.

38.

Osborne

(2002). Diversity among unmarried parents: Human capital, attitudes, and relationship quality. Princeton University, Working Papers 966 School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/crcwel/wp02-01-ff-osborne.pdf.html

39.

Palkovitz

(2002). Involved fathering and men’s adult development: Provisional balances. Erlbaum.

40.

Parke

R. D.

(1981). Fathers. Harvard University Press.

41.

Pearson

Wildfeuer

(2022). Policies and programs affecting fathers: A state-by-state report. https://file///C:/Users/Jay/Downloads/FRPN_State-By-State_Policy-Full-Report_(1).pdf

42.

Peters

Ehrenberg

M. F.

(2008). The influence of parental separation and divorce on father–child relationships. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 49(1-2), 78–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502550801973005

43.

Pleck

J. H.

(2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 58–93). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

44.

Raley

Bianchi

(2006). Sons, daughters, and family processes: Does gender of children matter? Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123106

45.

Rebman

P. A.

Caines

M. C.

Harrison

P. A.

(2018). In-hospital paternity establishment: Experiences and meaning perceived by unmarried parents. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 29(1), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2018.0033

46.

Ryan

R. M.

Kalil

Ziol-Guest

K. M.

(2008). Longitudinal patterns of nonresident fathers’ involvement: The role of resources and relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 962–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00539.x, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40056311

47.

Sayler

Hartman

Belsky

(2021). Antecedents of pregnancy intention and prenatal father engagement: A dyadic and typological approach. Journal of Family Issues, 43(8), 1993–2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211030036

48.

Schaber

Kopp

Zähringer

Mack

J. T.

Kress

Garthus-Niegel

(2021). Paternal leave and father-infant bonding: Findings from the population-based cohort study DREAM. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 668028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668028

49.

Shannon

J. D.

Cabrera

N. J.

Tamis-LeMonda

Lamb

M. E.

(2009). Who stays and who leaves? Father accessibility across children’s first 5 years. Parenting, Science and Practice, 9(1-2), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190802656786

50.

Van Spijker

Kalmijn

van Gaalen

(2022). The long-term improvement in father– child relationships after divorce: Descriptive findings from The Netherlands. Demographic Research, 46, 15, 452. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2022.46.15

51.

Venema

S. D.

Haan

Blaauw

Veenstra

(2022). Paternal imprisonment and father–child relationships: A systematic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(4), 492–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211033636

52.

Zilincikova

Albertini

(2022). Does union type make a difference when you separate? Frequency of father–child contact and father’s satisfaction with the relation. Genus, 78, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-022-00169-3

53.

Zill

Morrison

D. R.

Coiro

M. J.

(1993). Long-term effects of parental divorce on parent- child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.91

Children’s Contact With Fathers Who Never Co-Resided With Them and Father–Child Relationship Quality at age 9

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Considerations

Current Study

Method

Sample Characteristics

Measures

Father–Child Relationship Quality

Father–Child Contact

Controls

Data Analysis

Missing Data Analyses

Data Availability

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Bivariate Analyses

Multivariate Analyses

Discussion

Limitations

Implications for Policy and Practice

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Standards

ORCID iD

References