Like an Uncle But More, But Less Than a Father" - Irish Children's Relationships With Nonresident...

transcript

“Like an Uncle But More, But Less Than a Father” – Irish Children’sRelationships With Nonresident Fathers

Elizabeth Nixon, Sheila Greene, and Diane HoganTrinity College Dublin

Although previous research has highlighted the importance of the quality of nonresident father–childrelationships for children’s well-being, little is known about children’s perspectives on what underpinsfeelings of closeness to their nonresident fathers. This qualitative study explored the processes thatfacilitate or constrain children’s feelings of closeness to their nonresident fathers. Semistructuredinterviews were conducted with 27 children (ages 8 to 17) who had grown up in a single-motherhousehold, where fathers were nonresident from early in the child’s life. Findings revealed the fragilityof children’s ties with their nonresident fathers and the risk that nonresidence from the outset placed uponthese relationships. Children’s experiences of closeness to fathers were related to perceptions of theirfathers’ commitment to their relationship and his obligation to his parenting role, and to a sense ofconnection to and familiarity with their fathers. It was a challenge for children to feel connected to theirfathers when contact arrangements were detached from caregiving activities and precluded immersion ineach other’s daily lives. Lack of effort on the part of fathers to maintain contact or failure to keeparrangements constrained children’s feelings of closeness and gave rise to feelings of disappointment andanger. Children demonstrated their capacity to act as agents within their families as they made sense ofthese relationships for themselves and accepted or rejected their father as a person who could play ameaningful role in their lives. The implications of the findings for promoting positive relationships withnonresident fathers are discussed.

Keywords: nonresident fathers, father–child relationships, commitment, connection, fathering role

A substantial proportion of children in today’s world will spendat least part of their childhood living in a one-parent household,usually headed by mothers (Harris & Ryan, 2004). Concerns aboutthe negative consequences of this arrangement for children’s de-velopment have given rise to a plethora of research which hasexplored nonresident father–child levels of contact and the impli-cations of this contact for children’s well-being (Amato & Dorius,2010). Studies of the associations between frequency of contactand child well-being have yielded inconsistent findings (Amato &Gilbreth, 1999; Seltzer, 1991), and it is now recognized that it isthe quality of the father–child relationship and specifically theextent to which nonresident fathers engage in a parenting role,rather than the quantity of time spent together, that bestows ben-efits for children’s development (King & Sobolewski, 2006; Stew-art, 2003). However, the dynamics of nonresident father–childrelationships are poorly understood (King & Sobolewski, 2006)and limited research to date has considered children’s perspectiveson what underpins feelings of closeness to their nonresident fa-thers. The current study seeks to address this gap in the literature.

The aim of the study is to explore children’s experiences of theirrelationships with their nonresident fathers to identify what facil-

itates or constrains children’s closeness to fathers. Previous re-search has suggested that fathers who never live with their childrenor who depart from the family home early in the child’s life maynot have the opportunity to establish their paternal role and may beat particular risk of losing contact with their children (Amato,Meyers & Emery, 2009; Bronte-Tinkew & Horowitz, 2010).Therefore, the focus in this study is on families where fathers havebeen nonresident from early in the child’s life.

Quality of Nonresident Father–Child Relationships

It is widely acknowledged that it is the quality of time fathersand children spend together rather than the quantity that is impor-tant for children’s development (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Dunn,Cheng, O’Connor & Bridges, 2004). Based on a meta-analysis of63 studies, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) concluded that how oftenfathers see their children is less important than the father’s en-gagement in authoritative parenting and the quality of the emo-tional ties that have formed between the father and child. Thus,regular father–child contact, while necessary, is not sufficient inand of itself to underpin close father–child relationships.

However, it may be challenging for nonresident fathers to en-gage in authoritative parenting when contact time is punctuated bygaps of days or even weeks and thus precludes involvement in arange of parenting tasks. A number of studies have reported thatnonresident fathers are typically not involved in day-to-day activ-ities such as homework, instead tending to be indulgent andpermissive and to engage in leisure activities with their children toensure that their children enjoy themselves during their limited

This article was published Online First May 7, 2012.Elizabeth Nixon, Sheila Greene, and Diane Hogan, School of Psychol-

ogy and Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin,Ireland.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to ElizabethNixon, School of Psychology, Aras an Phiarsaigh, Trinity College Dublin,Dublin 2, Ireland. E-mail: enixon@tcd.ie

time together (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Pasley & Braver, 2004;Stewart, 1999). Simpson, McCarthy, and Walker (1995) reportedthat contact time between children and their nonresident fatherswas frequently detached from daily caregiving routines and dom-inated by shared recreational activities. They suggested that dailyroutines are central to processes of intimacy and bonding betweenfathers and their children. Indeed, immersion in daily routines maybe an important precursor to engaging in tasks associated withauthoritative parenting, such as provision of practical assistance,advice, and encouragement, as well as discipline and monitoring ofactivities (Lamb, Sternberg & Thompson, 1997).

Geographical distance from children is one of a myriad offactors which may constrain the extent to which nonresident fa-thers can be immersed in the daily routines of their children’s lives.A number of studies have found that geographic distance fromchildren is associated with nonresident fathers’ contact with theirchildren (Cheadle, Amato & King, 2010; Manning & Smock,1999). Cooksey and Craig (1998) found that fathers who livedmore than 100 miles from their children were not only less likelyto have monthly contact but were also less likely to have telephonecontact in between visits. This may occur because distance fromchildren constrains the opportunities for fathers to engage in rou-tine parenting tasks and thus undermines intimacy in the father–child relationship. It may also be that living far away from theirchildren reflects a weakened commitment to parenthood amongsome fathers. Cashmore, Parkinson, and Taylor (2007) found thatchildren who stayed overnight with their nonresident fathers morethan twice a month reported closer relationships with their fathersthan those who only saw their fathers during the day, even aftercontrolling for total amount of time spent together. Overnight staysmay give rise to a greater diversity of interactions and facilitatefathers’ involvement in routine parenting activities, thus facilitat-ing closeness in the relationship. Together these studies point tothe interchange that occurs between the nature and context ofchildren’s contact with their nonresident fathers and the quality ofthose relationships.

Children’s Perspectives on Relationships WithNonresident Fathers

Within the existing literature, there is considerable variation inhow closeness and quality of relationships between children andtheir nonresident fathers are conceptualized and measured (Fabri-cius, Braver, Diaz & Velez, 2010). Among the domains of thefather–child relationship that have been measured are communi-cation and confiding, shared activities, and conflict, along withratings of children’s feelings of closeness to their father (Dunn etal., 2004; Fabricius et al., 2010; Sobolewski & King, 2005; Stew-art, 2003). While children’s ratings of their relationships alongthese domains indicate something about the quality of relation-ships with nonresident fathers, our understanding of what dimen-sions of nonresident father–child relationships matter to the chil-dren themselves has been limited by the dominance of quantitativestudies, where the measures of quality in the relationship arepredetermined by the researcher. In contrast with this approach, aqualitative approach offers the opportunity for children to generatea narrative about their relationships with their fathers, thus en-abling identification of the dimensions of the relationship that

underpin feelings of closeness, or lack of closeness, from thechild’s perspective.

To date, a small number of qualitative studies have consideredchildren’s perspectives on living in a single-parent household(Brannen, Heptinstall & Bhopal, 2000; O’Brien & Jones, 1995;Smart, Neale & Wade, 2001), including their views on contactwith nonresident fathers. Theoretically, these studies are groundedin a perspective that children are active agents in how they con-struct meaning from their interactions with their environment andengage in self-initiated, intentional action (Kuczynski, 2003).These studies have indicated that children believe that nonresidentfathers have an obligation, rooted in biological terms, to providefinancial support to and maintain contact with their children(O’Brien & Jones, 1995; Clark, Craig, & Glendinning, 1996).Smart et al. (2001) also highlighted that children valued the sus-tenance of their relationship with their fathers despite challengesinherent in dividing time between two households. These findingshighlight children’s sense of obligation and commitment to thenonresident father–child relationship and resonate with Laursenand Bukowski’s (1997) claim that obligation and commitmentrepresent organizing features of the parent–child relationship, be-cause of the permanent, stable, and involuntary nature of theserelationships.

The Present Study

While these qualitative studies have yielded insight into thevalue children attach to their relationships with nonresident fa-thers, they have not explored the dynamics of the father–childrelationship and so our understanding of what underlies children’scloseness to nonresident fathers remains limited. The present studyseeks to address this gap by focusing specifically on what makeschildren feel close to their nonresident fathers. The study wasguided by the following research question: what relationship pro-cesses facilitate or constrain closeness between children and theirnonresident fathers? Through the use of a qualitative interview andcompletion of a closeness map, the study advances our understand-ing of how closeness in nonresident father–child relationships ischaracterized, from the perspective of children. This knowledgecould illuminate how nonresident fathers could engage with theirchildren in a manner that is likely to facilitate children’s feelingsof closeness to their fathers.

The study is focused upon one-parent households, where fathershave been nonresident from early in the child’s life and mothershave not entered into cohabiting relationships with subsequentpartners. Previous research has suggested that fathers who liveapart from their children from early in the child’s life may be atparticular risk of losing contact or having poor quality relation-ships with their children (Amato et al., 2009; Bronte-Tinkew &Horowitz, 2010).

Theoretically, the study is underpinned by the idea that childrenexercise agency in their relationships with parents. Children’sagency is reflected in their capacity for initiating purposeful be-havior and in how they interpret and make sense of their experi-ences (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007; Morrow, 2003). Relationshipcloseness is conceptualized as interdependence between individu-als, which is manifest in frequent and diverse interactions over anextended period of time (Hinde, 1997; Kelley et al., 1983). Ac-cording to Kuczynski (2003), a relationship develops as two indi-

382 NIXON, GREENE, AND HOGAN

viduals accumulate a history of interactions which are then inter-nalized and organized into mental schema consisting of memoriesand affects, which shape expectations regarding future interac-tions. Through discussion of the frequency and nature of contactbetween children and their fathers, we sought to reveal howchildren make sense of these relationships.

Method

Participants and Recruitment

A nonprobabilistic purposive sampling strategy was used torecruit one-parent families, where fathers had been nonresidentfrom early in the child’s life and mothers had not entered intocohabiting relationships with subsequent partners. We sampled onthe basis of the age of the child at which their father left the familyhome, rather than marital status of parents per se, as it has beensuggested that living arrangements may be a better indicator offamily structure than parental marital status (Bumpass & Raley,1995; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004). Families were ex-cluded if fathers had left the home after the child was 2.5 years ofage, in line with Weinraub and Wolf (1983) who used a similarcut-off age in their study of solo mother families. Families inwhich mothers had entered into cohabiting relationships withsubsequent partners were also excluded, to avoid the confoundinginfluence of substitute father figures on children’s relationshipwith their nonresident father, as has been demonstrated by previ-ous research (Amato et al., 2009; Juby, Billette, Laplante & LeBourdais, 2007). Finally, children who had no memory of contactwith their fathers or did not know his identity were excluded.

Families were accessed through a variety of sources: (a) primaryand secondary level schools (n � 21); (b) a notice about theresearch in newsletters distributed by two national agencies whoprovide information and services to single parent families (n � 1);and (c) snowball sampling via families who had already taken partin the study (n � 2). The sample comprised 27 children andadolescents (12 boys and 15 girls). The participants ranged in agefrom 8 to 17 years (M � 12.52 years, SD � 3.15) and includedthree sibling pairs. All participants were Caucasian and lived inDublin, Ireland. Table 1 illustrates the characteristics of thesample.

Procedure

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from theSchool of Psychology Ethics Committee within the university.During an initial meeting with each child and his or her mother,written consent to interview the child was obtained from thechild’s mother, and written assent was obtained from the child. Aspart of this process, mothers provided background information onthe family context. Children then participated in a semistructuredindividual interview with the first author. The interviews werebetween 45 and 90 minutes duration and were conducted in thechild’s home, or in the case of one child, in the school library. Allinterviews were audio-recorded. The interview schedule consistedof closed questions to collect factual, descriptive information, andopen-ended questions to allow for an in-depth exploration ofparticular issues.

As an introduction to talking specifically about relationshipswithin their own family, the child was initially asked to completea Closeness Map to elicit the content and closeness of the familynetwork. The map consists of five concentric circles, with thechild’s name represented in the center of the innermost circle.Children were asked to write the names of their family memberson the map and were instructed to place individual family mem-bers in the circles according to how close they felt to each indi-vidual, with those closest to them being placed in the innermostcircles. The use of a similar tool for the purpose of elicitingdiscussion with young people about their families has been previ-ously described by researchers (Brannen et al., 2000; Smart et al.,2001; Sturgess, Dunn & Davies, 2001). The completion of theCloseness Map provided the researcher with a broad overview ofthe child’s household and family situation, and network of familymembers whom the child considered important.

Table 1Characteristics of Sample

Child Gender (n � 27) 12 boys, 15 girlsChild Age (n � 27) Range: 8–17 years

Mean: 12.52 years (SD � 3.15)Child’s history of cohabitation

with father (n � 27)Never lived with father 13Lived with father 14Age of children when fathers

left home Range: 8–30 monthsMean: 21.14 months (SD � 8.39)

Children’s household composition(n � 27)

Mother and child alone 13Mother and child and siblings 14

Mother-father relationship history(n � 24)

Divorced 5Unmarried cohabited 8Unmarried never cohabited 11

Father payment of child support(n � 24)

In the past, but not currently 2Currently (in last three years)

but not in the past 3Continuously 7Never 12

Geographic location of father(n � 24)

Within Ireland 11Outside Ireland 13Father always lived outside

Ireland 3Mother returned to Ireland from

abroad 4Age of children at time of move Range: 1–7 years

Mean: 2.88 years (SD � 2.25)Father left Ireland to live abroad 6Age of children at time of move Range: 0.5–7 years

Mean: 3.71 years (SD � 2.94)Father Re-partnered (n � 24)

No information available 5Re-partnered, cohabiting with

partner’s children 3Re-partnered with subsequent

biological children 6Not re-partnered 10

383CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH NONRESIDENT FATHERS

Children’s contact with their nonresident fathers was exploredincluding current frequency of contact, stability and change infrequency of contact, and the nature of children’s contact with theirfathers, such as whether they stayed overnight with their fathers, orwhere and how they spent time together. The position of the fatheron the Closeness Map was used a starting point for a more in-depthexploration of the quality of the father–child relationship. Childrenwere asked to describe how close they felt to their fathers, and whythey had placed their father in that position on the map or omittedhim. Guided by an interactional perspective on relationships(Hinde, 1979), further discussion of the father–child relationshipcentered on key interactive situations as defined by Youniss andSmollar (1985) including typical and enjoyed interactions (e.g.,what do you do together?), communication (e.g., what do you talkabout?), conflict (e.g., do you argue?), and perceived obligations(e.g., What do fathers do in families? Are fathers important?).

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data pertaining to thefrequency and nature of children’s contact with their fathers weresubjected to content analysis. Narratives relating to the quality ofchildren’s relationships with their fathers were subjected to the-matic analysis, according to a recursive process outlined by Braunand Clarke (2006). The first stage of data analysis involved readingand rereading the transcripts and classifying the data into smallermeaningful categories and assigning them a code (Strauss &Corbin, 1990). These initial categories contained all data relatingto particular topics and were not mutually exclusive. For example,“usually we just watch TV and play a few card games” was codedas “shared activity.” After this, the codes were sorted into potentialthemes, and all relevant coded data extracts were collated withinidentified themes. Next, themes and subthemes were refined andtheir specific properties delineated, through the method of constantcomparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Analysis also involvedsearching and accounting for negative instances to ensure that all

evidence was confronted, not just data that fit with core themes(Seale, 1999).

Comparison of the authors’ interpretations with those of inde-pendent colleagues represented an important mechanism for sub-stantiating interpretations and ensuring trustworthiness (Gilgun,2005). The first author coded the transcripts and derived thethemes, in consultation with three colleagues, all of whom werefamiliar with the research. Following the initial categorizationprocess, codes were reviewed with one colleague who commentedon the classification of meaning units and the category labelsassigned to them. Next, another two colleagues reviewed thecoding manuals and derived themes and came together to discusstheir interpretation of the data with the first author. This facilitatedthe identification of themes beyond those identified by the re-searcher alone. At the final stage, the first colleague assisted withthe refinement of themes and delineation of subthemes. At allpoints in the process, where disagreement occurred, consensus wasachieved through discussion, negotiation and joint generation ofthemes (Bryman & Burgess, 1994).

Results

Contact and Closeness to Nonresident Fathers

Less than one third of the children had face-to-face contact withtheir fathers at least once a month (n � 8). Three of these childrenhad previously cohabited with their fathers, and five had no historyof cohabitation with their fathers. For half of this group this timespent together incorporated an overnight stay in their fathers’home, and in all of these cases fathers lived in Dublin and sur-rounding areas. These eight children represent the group with themost frequent and stable patterns of contact as such arrangementsappeared to have been fairly consistent throughout the children’slives. Three of these fathers had repartnered and had subsequentchildren, and six of these fathers paid child support.

For 10 children, contact with their nonresident father was con-fined to holiday periods and midterm breaks. Three of these fathers

Table 2Frequency and Nature of Contact Between Children and Nonresident Fathers, and Inclusion/Position of Father on ClosenessMap (n � 27)

Younger group(8–12 years)

(n � 13)

Older group(13–17 years)

(n � 14)Omit

(n � 10)Outermost circles(4th/5th) (n � 3)

Middle circles(2nd/3rd)(n � 7)

Innermost circle(1st) (n � 7)

Ceased contactNo contact in at least two years 9 4 5 8 1

Rare contactOnce or twice a year – trips abroad for

weekends/holidays 5 4 1 2 3Once every two years – trips abroad for

weekends/holidays 2 1 1 1 1Occasional contact

At least once every one to three months– long weekends & mid-term breaks 3 1 2 1 2

Regular contactAt least once every one to two weeks

– no overnight stay 4 0 4 1 2 1At least once every one to two weeks

– with overnight stay 4 3 1 2 2

paid child support and seven of these fathers lived abroad. Despiterelatively infrequent face-to-face contact within this group, thesechildren and their fathers maintained some contact in betweenvisits via e-mail and telephone calls.

In nine cases, father–child contact had ceased altogether be-tween two and eight years before the study (M � 5.78 years, SD �2.54), when the children ranged in age from 4 to 14 years (M �6.56 years, SD � 3.17). Six of these children had no previoushistory of cohabitation with their fathers. For seven of thesechildren, fathers lived abroad (six fathers, as two of the childrenare siblings). Two of these fathers paid child support. No gender orage-related patterns emerged in the frequency of father–childcontact (see Table 2).

The position of fathers on the Closeness Map provided a tenta-tive insight into how children rated the quality of their relationshipwith their father. Eight of the nine children for whom contact withtheir fathers had ceased did not include him on their Map, indi-cating that they did not consider their father to be part of theirfamily network. Among the other contact groups, the majority ofchildren placed their fathers in the innermost or middle circles,indicating that they considered themselves to feel close to theirfathers. However, three children with the most regular pattern ofcontact placed him in the outer circles or omitted him altogether,suggesting that frequent contact was not sufficient per se forchildren to feel close to their fathers. There was no gender patternin children’s rating of the quality of their relationship with theirfather. Among those who did have contact with their fathers, theyounger children (8–12 years) were more likely to place theirfathers in the innermost circle, while the older children (13–17years) were more likely to place their fathers in the outer circles,indicating a less close relationship. It may be that some form ofcontact is sufficient for younger children to feel close to theirfathers. In contrast, there was more variation in ratings of close-ness among the adolescents, suggesting that factors beyond fre-quency of contact underpin closeness for this group (see Table 2).

In the following sections, three themes which emerged from thethematic analysis of children’s narratives are presented. The firsttwo themes, titled Feeling Connected and Commitment reflect keyrelationships processes that underpin children’s closeness to theirnonresident fathers. The final theme, Making Sense of their Fa-

ther’s Role, captures the process by which children make sense ofand respond to the role of their father in their lives. No gender-related patterns were evident across the themes, although someage-related patterns did emerge (see Table 3).

Feeling Connected

Feeling connected, characterized by a sense of familiarity thatexisted between children and their fathers, emerged as a key themewithin the narratives of both the older and younger children andacross all patterns of father–child contact. The data indicated thatthe majority of the children did not feel connected to their fathers,and a sense of familiarity with each other was missing. One12-year-old boy who had rare contact with his father described: “Inever see him and I don’t really know much about him so he’s notmuch of a family to me when I think about it.” However, evenwhen contact was regular, children reported that their fatherslacked awareness of what was happening for them in their day-to-day lives. This 11-year-old girl described how despite spendingone night a week with her father, she did not feel that she knew herfather very well and he did not appear to be at ease around childrenor in his parenting role:

I don’t, I don’t see as much of him and I don’t know as much abouthim . . . it’s kind of disappointing the fact that I don’t know muchabout my dad. My dad doesn’t usually give out to me ’cos he doesn’treally know how to act around children.

This contact was still important and it was clear that she stillvalued the time she spent with him, stating that without this: “I’dfeel kind of a bit left out that I didn’t have a dad, if I didn’t knowhim.” The fact that these children had either never lived with theirfathers or had only lived with their fathers during their early yearsmay account for the lack of familiarity and involvement reportedby the children. Having never lived together, their relationshipsmay be missing a history of shared experiences, and role expec-tations may not have clearly developed for either child or father.The significance of never having shared a residence was empha-sized by this 17-year-old boy when he talked about the lack ofconnection between himself and his father:

It would be easier to negotiate a relationship with a parent that hasmoved out of the house because they know them inside the house andnow they know them outside the house. I only really know my dadoutside the house, so it’s a bit weird, but it would be easier for them[children who had lived with their fathers prior to their parents’separation], I think but it would also be very strange for them too.

The lack of connection between children and fathers was re-flected in the description of the types of communication exchangesin the relationship, which were generally not characterized by easeof mutual exchanges, particularly in relation to emotional content.Even when contact was regular, living apart from their father haddistanced him from what was happening in their day-to-day lives,and impacted not only on possibilities for conversations but alsoon acceptable topics for conversations. One 17-year-old boystated: “I don’t tend to talk about in-depth talks, he’s very cleveryou see, so we would talk about history or geography. Somethinglike that to pass the time, other than sport, I would be stuck to talkto him.” Another boy, age 14, stated:

Table 3Summary of Themes

Theme Description & Sub-themes

Feeling connected Children’s sense of familiarity with theirfather

• He is not clued into my life• Lack of disclosure of personal issues• Awkwardness in each other’s presence

Commitment Children feelings about their fathers’commitment to their relationship

• Accessibility of father – regular efforts tomaintain contact

• Perceptions of limited investment – failureto follow-through on promises

Making sense of theirfathers’ role

Children’s ambiguity about fathers’ roleRealization and disappointment• Acceptance of their fathers• Rejection of their fathers

Talk to him about some things, you know if I was, I’ll give you anexample, I was singing in a concert for the school, I told him aboutthat . . . not about sort of personal life, because obviously I don’t seehim that much, so he can’t be as keyed in as people who are.

Thus, children enforced clear boundaries around topics theywould discuss with their fathers, and for the most part, this wasrelated to fathers’ lack of familiarity and involvement with theirday-to-day lives. It is also likely that a bidirectional process was inoperation, whereby the nature of the communication exchanges inthe relationship contributed to lack of familiarity and connectionexperienced by many of the children. Restricted knowledge abouteach other’s lives and reserved patterns of communication weresources of emotional distancing between children and their fathers,even when contact between children and fathers was regular.

Similarly, a perceived lack of connection permeated the narra-tives of children for whom contact with their fathers had dimin-ished over time. While these children had memories of what theirfather was like, shared times were remembered in terms of feelingstrange or awkward. One teenage girl described the last time shemet her father as “terrible” and “awkward,” while one of theyounger children described how she was not accustomed to havingher father in her house: “my dad was over here the last time and itfelt weird . . . it didn’t feel very right”. In another case, a 15-year-old boy decided that he did not feel comfortable in his father’spresence and so decided that he no longer wanted to have contactat the time. He was 7 years old and had not talked to his fathersince, despite the fact that his brother had weekly visits with theirfather. He described the last occasion on which he spent time withhis father:

I remember the day I decided not to, I sort of thought, I think I said,I want to get collected, ok, and I said well I want to get collected now. . . I just thought that maybe that, I couldn’t, I can’t explain, I neverfelt that I was in danger or anything like that, I just never feltcomfortable being there. Just maybe anxious . . . I’d never reallygotten to know him as a dad, he was sort of more a stranger you know. . . and he was a liar and he was making a lot of stuff up, and Ithought, right enough of this.

Thus, despite having memories of shared times, descriptions ofmeetings as “weird” and “awkward” signify the children’s lack ofconnection to their fathers. Despite previous contact, these rela-tionships were not generally characterized as close and a father’scontinued absence over previous years resulted in him not beingconsidered part of the child’s family network.

Commitment

Children’s perceptions of their fathers’ commitment to thefather–child relationship emerged as a second key theme under-pinning children’s feelings of closeness to their fathers. Theyounger children reported upon positive experiences of commit-ment, while the older age group reported upon negative experi-ences of commitment. Certain behaviors and actions on the part ofthe fathers, such as regular phone calls, text messages, emails, andarranging and financing trips abroad to visit, were interpreted assigns of a father’s commitment to the relationship and this facili-tated feelings of closeness toward him. One 12-year-old girl whohad rare contact with her father said the following:

I couldn’t really say I feel sad because, actually my dad said in thesummer—I go over every summer—and my dad says that if I livedover in America, then I would be seeing him even less because he getstime off work when I go over, especially.

One 8-year-old boy who had rare contact with his father wholived in France was assured of his father’s commitment to main-taining contact with him: “That makes him sound like a bad father[that he lives in France], but he’s not, because he likes me, he lovesme, he pays for me to go over and everything.” Other behaviors,such as regular phone calls at prearranged times heightened chil-dren’s sense of accessibility to their fathers, and represented a signof their fathers’ commitment to the relationship, even in theabsence of regular contact.

In contrast, a number of the older children described negativeexperiences of commitment, where children perceived that theirfathers invested little time or effort into them, were unreliable andfailed to keep arrangements or promises that were made, or refusedto provide financial support. This was apparent even when childrenhad some contact with their fathers. One 16-year-old girl describedher distress at her father’s lack of reliability:

I did get upset at Christmas, when he went about two months withoutem, calling me or texting me, and when he starting texting me againout of the blue, I just go, I got absolutely sick of him, I mean he usedan excuse one night for not ringing, he said his house had burneddown, which I think is completely stupid. That’s no excuse, he stillshould have rang me, no but I mean he’s always doing things like that.Ah the problem is that he’s never ever kept, he’d say he’s gonna comeover, never comes over, that kind of thing.

One 17-year-old boy, who had regular contact with his father,drew parallels between his relationship with his father and thefather–son relationship depicted in the song “Cat’s in the Cradle.”

Child: Maybe like that song, it’s about the son growing up and eh thedad didn’t have enough time, and he came back and he was goingthrough the stage of the son’s life where he first walked, first went toschool and then eh wanted to play ball but he couldn’t play ball withhim and then when he finally turned around and realized that when hesaw his son, his son didn’t have time to see him.

Researcher: And do you get the sense that your dad is kind of too busyfor you, is that it?

Child: He doesn’t really make an effort, like we’d never go to footballmatches or anything like that.

Where children were uncertain of their fathers’ commitment totheir relationship, feelings of dependency were lessened, and con-sequently feelings of closeness diminished. On occasions, a per-ceived lack of commitment also led to feelings of disappointmentin their fathers, and even rejection. In contrast, a sense of com-mitment, established through regular effort on the part of the fatherto maintain contact, facilitated closeness in the relationship. Thetheme of commitment to the relationship also emerged for aminority of the ceased contact group, where their father’s lack ofengagement over the years resulted in the permanent and obliga-tory nature of the relationship being questioned. For example, one16-year-old girl decided that she no longer wished to maintain arelationship with her father, because of his unreliability and in-consistency with regard to contact with her: “Every couple of yearshe’ll get in contact with me and I just got sick of that and I just

stopped replying . . . I got a new phone and he doesn’t have thatnumber so he can’t contact me.” This case illustrates children’scapacity to act as agents within their families, as they took steps toresolve problematic relationships with their fathers, through ceas-ing contact.

Making Sense of Their Fathers’ Role

A final theme that emerged from children’s interviews capturedthe process by which children made sense of their relationshipswith their fathers and responded to his shortcomings in fulfillinghis fathering role in their lives. This theme, perceptible solelyamong the older age group, comprises two subordinate themes.The first theme refers to the challenge articulated by a minority ofthe children in defining the nature of their fathers’ role in theirlives, or how to address or talk about him, as articulated by this14-year-old boy when asked how he would describe the role thathis father plays in his life: “Difficult to answer . . . like an olderfriend, except more of a connection, kind of like an uncle but more,but less than a father.” Another boy, age 15, stated that “I neverconsidered myself as having had a dad.” He went on to describethe following:

I never really called him dad, I never really called him anything likethat. It’s like one of those situations where you don’t know . . . whenyou’re in a situation with someone and you don’t know what to callthem, do you call them Sir, Mr. X, or their first name.

These young people may be reflecting some ambiguity about therole that their father plays in their lives, as he does not fit withsocietal prescriptions of what fathers do. The second subordinatetheme was characterized by action on the realization that fatherswere not living up to expectations about what fathers do. Thecentral emotion here was one of disappointment that fathers werefailing to fulfill their fathering role. Realization and acknowledg-ment of their fathers’ shortcomings was met with either an accep-tance or rejection of their father as a person who could play ameaningful role in their lives. In the first example, this 17-year-oldgirl had come to terms with her father as a “complete person,” andwhile she did not hold him in high regard, still actively sustaineda relationship and had regular contact with him:

It’s really hard to look on him as a role model as a man . . . it’s likeas a person I’d say you know he’s fine and I’m close to him but Icouldn’t really sort of connect to him properly as a father role modelif you know what I mean. I used to be like, I used to be a completedaddy’s girl, you know when I was a kid, but then you kind of, kindof go, you wake up and you realize that you know. I was suddenly sortof thrown into the reality of sort of the person that my dad is and Ithink it’s kind of, it’s good because I know, you know, I know himbetter now and I know him as a complete person and not you know inan idyllic form, and I’ve come to accept it.

In contrast, this 15-year-old girl and her father have little con-tact, a situation which has clearly caused her much pain and hurt.Her acknowledgment that her father will never change and that sheis better off having no contact reflected her position in makingsense of her relationship with him.

Child: I used to love him to pieces but then he lied to me all the timeand then he was a dick whenever I rang.

Researcher: Do you see things with you and your dad improving asyou get older?

Child: No . . . just the way they are, I don’t think my dad could evergrow so . . . it was more of a relief [having no contact] because theother way hurt me far more, I don’t really think about him all thatmuch anymore, I don’t think he hurts me anymore.

Inherent in these narratives is an ambiguity about the status oftheir relationships with their fathers and it may be that despitecontact, either now or in the past, their relationship with theirfathers did not typically fit the societal prescriptions for a father–child relationship. A number of the older children were acceptingof the reality of their fathers as people and worked toward buildinga relationship, defined by their own terms. Others dealt with thisreality by rejecting the possibility of contact, seeing oneself asbeing better off without him. In contrast, a minority of the children,particularly among the younger children, who had contact withtheir fathers and felt their fathers were accessible and committed,evaluated their relationship in broadly positive terms and wereaccepting of their situations and their fathers. Generally this con-tact and level of engagement was sufficient for them to feel closeto their fathers.

Discussion

In this study, we examined children’s experiences of relation-ships with nonresident fathers, where fathers had been absent fromthe home from early in the child’s life and no subsequent fatherfigure had resided in the household. In contrast to the existingresearch on the quality of children’s relationships with nonresidentfathers, no prior assumptions were made about how the quality ofthese relationships should be measured or evaluated. Rather, theuse of a Closeness Map coupled with an open-ended qualitativeinterview enabled children to rate and then generate narrativesabout their relationships with their fathers and facilitated theidentification of what makes children feel close to their fathers.This study has illuminated how children construct the meaning oftheir relationships with their fathers and has identified connectionand commitment as key relationship processes that facilitate feel-ings of closeness to nonresident fathers.

The findings indicated that children did not feel connected tofathers where their fathers were not assimilated into the ebb andflow of everyday life and were not attuned to what was happeningin their day-to-day lives, even when contact was regular. Feelingsof being disconnected coupled with a lack of openness in commu-nication were nested within contact arrangements that took on anarrow focus and precluded immersion in the ordinary uneventfulhappenings of daily life that breed familiarity and predictability.Fathers were generally not available to hear about and react to theday-to-day events that happen in children’s lives. Other research-ers have suggested that opportunities for spontaneous provision ofcare and support are integral for intimacy and interdependence todevelop (Duck, Acitelli & Nicholson, 2000; Simpson et al., 1995).Thus, it may be that as a result of the absence of these types ofeveryday interactions, these children’s relationships were charac-terized by a lack of connection, and fathers were not perceived asbeing a ready and obvious support to children. Cooksey and Craig(1998) indicated that father–child contact that is solely centeredaround shared activities and does not involve conversational forms

of communication such as using the telephone may not be asconducive to keeping up with “the rhythms of the child’s life” (p.187). This was clearly corroborated by the children in the currentstudy who suggested that, in the context of prearranged contacttime that was divorced from routine, communication took on aplanned or contrived form, which contributed to a perceived lackof connection in the relationship and made them feel less close totheir fathers.

In the context of living apart, accessibility to fathers was clearlyconstrained, but not totally precluded, and effort on the father’spart to sustain the relationship reflected his commitment to therelationship and facilitated children’s feelings of closeness. Chil-dren interpreted regular phone calls, text messages, and emailsfrom their father as a sign of their father’s commitment to therelationship, which contributed to a sense that fathers were acces-sible and available. In fact, these actions served a dual purpose: notonly did they reflect a father’s investment in the relationship, butthey also fostered the development of connection in the relation-ship. Thus, the establishment of routines on the part of fathers(such as a regular telephone call or daily text message) wasconducive to fathers and children becoming aware of and involvedin each other’s daily lives and provided a forum for fathers to offersupport and advice to their children (Cooksey & Craig, 1998). Thefindings from this study highlight that regular engagement incommunicative interaction represents a potential mechanismthrough which interdependence and connection can be nurtured,when face-to-face contact is not possible; and at the same time,fathers are signaling their intention to preserve the relationship.Indeed, for a minority of children in the study, fathers had man-aged to convey a sense that they were available to their childrenand committed to maintaining the relationship, despite physicalseparation from them.

Further illuminating the significance of fathers’ effort and reli-ability for conveying a sense of commitment were the narratives ofchildren who reflected that their fathers invested little time oreffort into their relationships. Negative experiences of commit-ment were common and were experienced by children who hadmaintained contact with their fathers and whose fathers paid childsupport, as well as by those for whom contact had ceased andwhose fathers did not pay child support. This suggests that per-ceptions of commitment are based upon more than contact andpayment of child support. Children’s perceptions of fathers’ lackof commitment meant that feelings of trust and dependence werenot fostered and feelings of disappointment, anger, and rejectionwere entrenched in their narratives. In support of this, Dunn (2003)reported that effort and commitment on the part of nonresidentfathers to make a reliable and consistent family life mattered tochildren and that children reported negative relationships withfathers who were unreliable and frequently cancelled visitationarrangements (Dunn & Deater-Deckard, 2001).

While no clear gender-related patterns emerged from the data,the findings highlight some developmental patterns in how chil-dren make sense of these relationships. Overall, the older childrenexpressed greater dissatisfaction with their relationships with theirfathers than younger children. There are a number of plausiblereasons for this. For younger children some form of contact may besufficient for positive perceptions of the relationship. In contrast,with more sophisticated cognitive capacity and greater awarenessof their own emotional needs, adolescents’ relationships with their

fathers may be more open to scrutiny and comparison with otherrelationships. In addition, adolescents have accumulated moreexperiences with their nonresident fathers that they can draw uponto guide their perceptions of the relationship. It is also possible thatthe adolescents’ greater dissatisfaction with these relationshipsreflects to some extent the normative decline in feelings of emo-tional closeness to parents which has been well documented duringthe adolescent years (Smetana, 2011).

Specifically, there was a tendency for adolescents to interpretnegative experiences in the father–child relationship as a failure onhis part to fulfill his obligation as a parent figure. The noninvolve-ment of fathers in daily caregiving routines channeled the role ofthe father in these children’s lives into a nebulous unprescribedrole, as fathers were clearly disengaged from the complex experi-ences of home and family life. A number of the children expresseda sense of loss and disappointment as their fathers were not livingup to their expectations of what a father should be. Such feelingswere dealt with through either a process of acceptance of theirfather as a person who could play some role in their lives, orrejection. This was not inevitable though, as some of the olderchildren did express that they felt close to their fathers—herewell-established patterns of contact and effort on the part of fathershad generated a sense that fathers were accessible and committedto the relationship.

The findings from the study also highlight children’s agencywithin the family. Many of the children experienced a sense ofambiguity around the role of their father in their lives, as he waseither absent from their lives, or was not living up to their expec-tations as prescribed by the “father” label. However, where chil-dren had come to accept the nature of their relationship with theirfather, they organized and negotiated their relationships in a man-ner that was optimal for them, even to the extent of choosing tohave no contact. Where relationships were not assured, and obli-gations inherent in parent–child role prescriptions were not met,children considered the relationship as voluntary and imperma-nent, no longer rooted in ties of biology, societal prescriptions andobligations. This represents a contrast to the way in which rela-tionships with parents are usually conceptualized (Laursen &Bukowski, 1997) and suggests that impermanence and voluntari-ness are features that may underpin children’s relationships withparents in the context of nonresidence and the absence of anextensive relationship history.

The macrolevel context within which the data were collectedmerits some attention. Relative to contexts such as the UnitedStates, the demographic landscape of family in Ireland continues tobe dominated by the traditional family structure of children livingwith their married biological parents (Government of Ireland,2010). In light of this, there may be few cultural models whichnonresident fathers and their children can draw upon to guide theirrelationship. In addition, unmarried fathers in Ireland are affordedno legal rights to their children, and this may legitimize thedisengaged pattern of parenting adopted by many fathers of chil-dren in the present study. However, caution should be exercised indrawing conclusions about how cultural values underpin children’sresponses to their family situation, particularly in the absence ofrelevant cross-cultural research. In addition, many fathers of chil-dren in the study lived abroad, and so Irish cultural influences maycarry less significance for this sample of fathers and children.

There are a number of limitations to this study. First, the sampleachieved was the product of purposive and snowball samplingtechniques. The self-selection nature of this sample limits thegeneralizability of the findings to other families where childrenlive apart from their fathers. In addition, while 27 children wereincluded in the study, only 24 family units were represented,because of the inclusion of three sibling pairs. This nonindepen-dence of data may be problematic, although it is worth noting thatthe children in one sibling pair had different patterns of contact,and in two sibling pairs, closeness ratings were different betweensiblings. Thus despite reporting upon the same father, these sib-lings had distinct relationships with their fathers.

Another limitation relates to the variability in the sample. Whilewe recruited children who did not share an extensive history ofcohabitation with their nonresident fathers, the sample was none-theless characterized by some variability in other family andcontextual characteristics. One important source of variability re-lated to the fact that many of the fathers lived abroad, and it couldbe argued that these families represent a distinct group who faceunique challenges because of the additional practical and financialinvestment required to sustain frequent face-to-face contact. It isalso acknowledged that a range of contextual variables, such as theinterparental relationship and fathers’ subsequent relationships,will influence father–child relationships. However, given the qual-itative nature of this study it was not possible to systematicallydelineate the impact of these variables on children’s relationshipswith their fathers. Future qualitative research could further com-plement existing quantitatively based research by examining howsome of these characteristics operate to shape nonresident father–child relationships. For example, the role of mothers as gatekeeperbetween children and their fathers merits attention, as does theimpact of developmental transitions in the life course of children,mothers and fathers.

A further limitation of the study was its reliance upon once-offsemistructured interviews. It is conceded that this approach ob-scures to an extent the dynamic nature of these relationships, anda longitudinal approach could more usefully capture ongoing tran-sitions in these relationships. Furthermore, the exclusion of fa-thers’ perspectives has precluded achieving a more nuanced un-derstanding of the transactional nature of these relationships. Thus,the simultaneous consideration of both perspectives represents aworthwhile avenue for future research. Finally, an attachmentframework that deals with issues of loss and separation may bemore appropriate than an interactional framework for exploringfather–child relationships where contact has ceased.

Despite these limitations, this study advances our understandingof what matters to children in their relationships with nonresidentfathers and has implications for practitioners working with fami-lies. The significance of connection and commitment as processesthat facilitate children’s closeness to their fathers highlights theneed for families to move beyond solely maintaining father–childcontact, particularly as children get older. Specifically, more con-sideration needs to be given to the settings in which contact takesplace to maximize opportunities for intimacy, openness in com-munication and a sense of connection. The findings also illustratethat an absence of face-to-face contact does not preclude children’ssecurity in their father’s commitment to his parental obliga-tion—of key significance is effort on the part of fathers to keepregular contact with their children, through email and telephone

contact for example. Practitioners working with nonresident fa-thers could highlight these actions as important mechanismsthrough which fathers can foster connection and demonstrate theircommitment to their children. In addition the experiences of loss,anger, and disappointment among children for whom contact withfathers has ceased indicate that these children may need support tohelp them resolve these emotional experiences.

Our findings relating to children’s relationships with fathers callinto question Laursen and Bukowski’s (1997) claim that perma-nence and obligation represent defining dimensions of parent–child relationships. A shift away from thinking about the parent–child relationship along these dimensions may be warranted,particularly when parents live outside the family home. To date,little has been written about commitment in parent–child relation-ships, perhaps indicating an unquestioned belief that parent–childrelationships are obligatory, underpinned not only by biologicalrelatedness, but also deeply engrained social norms (Laursen &Bukowski, 1997; Bainham, 2003). The discussion of commitmentin relationships has been restricted in the main to marital relation-ships (Hinde, 1997), while obligation is usually considered interms of wider kin relationships (Finch & Mason, 1993). However,the potentially impermanent and involuntary nature of the parent–child relationship is illustrated in the current study not only in howchildren perceived that their fathers did not display commitment tomaintaining the relationship, but also how children themselvesthought and acted as if they were free to leave the relationship.Therefore the findings of the current study highlight that thesecomponents of relationships need to be reconsidered with regard tochild–parent relationships that increasingly operate beyond thewell-established boundaries of one household with two parents.

References

Amato, P. R., & Dorius, C. (2010). Fathers, children and divorce. In M. E.Lamb (Ed.) The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp.177–200). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’swell-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,557–573. doi:10.2307/353560

Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonres-ident father-child contact form 1976 to 2002. Family Relations: AnInterdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 58, 41–53. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00533.x

Bainham, A. (2003). Contact as a right and obligation. In A. Bainham, B.Lindley, M. Richards & L. Trinder (Eds.) Children and their families:Contact, rights and welfare (pp. 61–88). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.

Brannen, J., Heptinstall, E., & Bhopal, K. (2000). Connecting children.Care and family life in later childhood. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bronte-Tinkew, J., & Horowitz, A. (2010). Factors associated with unmar-ried nonresident fathers’ perceptions of their coparenting. Journal ofFamily Issues, 31, 31–65. doi:10.1177/0192513X09342866

Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (1994). Reflections on qualitative dataanalysis. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.) Analyzing qualitativedata (pp. 216 –226). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_11

Bumpass, L. L., & Raley, K. R. (1995). Redefining single-parent families:Cohabitation and changing family reality. Demography, 32, 97–109.doi:10.2307/2061899

Cashmore, J., Parkinson, P., & Taylor, A. (2007). Overnight stays andchildren’s relationships with resident and nonresident parents after di-vorce. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 707–733. doi:10.1177/0192513X07308042

Cheadle, J. E., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2010). Patterns of nonresidentfather contact. Demography, 47, 205–225. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0084

Clarke, K., Craig, G., & Glendinning, C. (1996). Children’s views on childsupport. London: The Children’s Society.

Cooksey, E. C., & Craig, P. H. (1998). Parenting from a distance: Theeffect of paternal characteristics on contact between non-residentialfathers and children. Demography, 35, 187–200. doi:10.2307/3004051

Duck, S., Acitelli, L. K., & Nicholson, J. H. (2000). Family life as anexperiential quilt. In R. M. Milardo & S. Duck (Eds.) Families asrelationships (pp. 175–189). New York, NY: Wiley.

Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T. G., & Bridges, L. (2004). Children’sperspectives on their relationships with their nonresident fathers: Influ-ences, outcomes and implications. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 45, 553–566. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00245.x

Dunn, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Children’s views of their changingfamilies. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Dunn, J. (2003). Contact and children’s perspectives on parental relation-ships. In A. Bainham, B. Lindley, M. P. Richards & L. Trinder (Eds.)Children and their families: Contacts, rights and welfare (pp. 15–32).Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.

Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., & Velez, C. E. (2010). Custodyand parenting time. Links to family relationships and well-being afterdivorce. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The role of the father in child development(5th ed., pp. 201–240) Hobroken, NJ: Wiley.

Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating family responsibilities. London,UK: Routledge.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting apart: Patterns of childrearing after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47,893–904. doi:10.2307/352332

Gilgun, J. F. (2005). Qualitative research in family psychology. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 19, 40–50. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.40

Government of Ireland (2010). State of the Nation’s children. Ireland 2010.Dublin: Government Publications.

Harris, K. M., & Ryan, S. (2004). Father involvement and the diversity offamily context. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing andmeasuring father involvement (pp. 293–319). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. Hove, UK:Psychology Press.

Juby, H., Billette, J., Laplante, B., & Le Bourdais, C. (2007). Nonresidentfathers and children. Parents’ new unions and frequency of contact.Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1220 –1245. doi:10.1177/0192513X07302103

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L.,Levinger, G., . . . & Peterson, D. R. (Eds.) (1983). Close relationships.New York, NY: Freeman.

King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contributionsto adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537–557.doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00274.x

Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in so-cialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In J. E.Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.) Handbook of socialization: A relationshipperspective (pp. 259–283), New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality. Bilateral conceptual frame-works for understanding dynamics in parent-child relations. In L. Kuc-

zynski (Ed.) Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 3–24).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Thompson, R. A. (1997). The effects ofdivorce and custody arrangements on children’s behavior, developmentand adjustment. Family & Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 393–404.doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.1997.tb00482.x

Laursen, B., & Bukowski, W. M. (1997). A developmental guide to theorganization of close relationships. International Journal of BehavioralDevelopment, 21, 747–770. doi:10.1080/016502597384659

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (1999). New families and father-childvisitation. Social Forces, 78, 87–116.

Morrow, V. (2003). A sociological perspective on children’s agency withinfamilies. In L. Kuczynski (Ed.) Handbook of dynamics in parent-childrelations. (pp. 109–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Brien, M., & Jones, D. (1995). Young people’s attitudes to fatherhood.In P. Moss (Ed.) Father figures. Fathers in the families of the 1990s. (pp.27–40). Edinburgh, UK: HMSO.

Pasley, K., & Braver, S. L. (2004). Measuring father involvement indivorced, nonresident fathers. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.)Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement (pp. 217–240). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live

apart: The father’s role after separation. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 53, 79–101. doi:10.2307/353135

Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and childwellbeing: A critical review. In D. P. Moynihan, L. Rainwater & T.Smeeding (Eds.) The future of the family (pp. 116–155). New York, NY:Russell Sage Foundation.

Simpson, B., McCarthy, P., & Walker, J. (1995). Being there: Fathers afterdivorce. Newcastle, UK: Relate Centre for Family Studies.

Smart, C., Neale, B., & Wade, A. (2001). The changing experience ofchildhood. Families and divorce. Oxford, UK: Polity.

Smetana, J. G. (2011). Adolescents, families and social development. Howteens construct their worlds. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sobolewski, J. M., & King, V. (2005). The importance of the coparentalrelationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriageand Family, 67, 1196–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00210.x

Stewart, S. D. (1999). Disneyland dads, Disneyland moms? How nonres-ident parents spend time with absent children. Journal of Family Issues,20, 539–556. doi:10.1177/019251399020004006

Stewart, S. D. (2003). Nonresident parenting and adolescent adjustment.The quality of nonresident father-child interaction. Journal of FamilyIssues, 24, 217–244. doi:10.1177/0192513X02250096

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sturgess, W., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2001). Young children’s perceptionsof their relationships with family members: Links with family settings,friendships and adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-opment, 25, 521–529. doi:10.1080/01650250042000500

Weinraub, M., & Wolf, B. M. (1983). Effects of stress and social supportson mother-child interactions in single- and two-parent families. ChildDevelopment, 54, 1297–1311. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep12432703

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers,fathers and friends. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Received November 3, 2011Revision received March 27, 2012

Accepted March 27, 2012 �

Like an Uncle But More, But Less Than a Father" - Irish Children's Relationships With Nonresident...

Documents