Shared Residential Custody: Review of the Research

(Part I of II)
DR. LINDA NIELSEN

P
art I of this two-part article focuses on major con- their fathers and spend some time living with their
cerns relating to shared residential custody, the mothers (9). Moreover, in France, since 2002, shared
children’s perspective, parental conflict, and coop- residence has been an explicit legal option for sepa-
eration and income. Part II will discuss characteristics of rating parents. Indeed, it is placed as the first option
fathers, outcomes for children (e.g., academic and behav- in a list of possible parenting plans, with both
ioral), and stability of shared parenting. The studies ref- parents receiving health insurance benefits and the
erenced in both parts appear at the end of Part I. government allowance for dependent children (10).

Shared residential custody is becoming more TWO DOZEN STUDIES

prevalent worldwide. Until recently, only five per-
cent to seven percent of American children lived Since there are now two dozen studies on these
at least one third of the time with each parent after shared parenting families, a clearer picture is
their divorce. Most lived exclusively with their emerging—one that runs counter to a number of
mother, spending only four or five nights a month— negative assumptions and misconceptions com-
at most—in their father’s home (1). But a change monly held about these families. Nevertheless,
is clearly underway. For example, in Arizona and publications, and discussions about shared par-
in Washington state, 30% to 50 % of the children enting too often ignore this body of research and
whose parents divorced in the past several years are
living at least one third of the time with each par-
ent (2;3), as are 30% of the children whose parents Linda Nielsen, Ed.D. is a professor of Adolescent
divorced in Wisconsin between 1996 and 2001 (Melli and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University
& Browne, 2008). Likewise, in Australia, the Nether- in Winston Salem North Carolina. Her areas of expertise
lands, and Denmark, approximately 20% of children are father-daughter relationships and shared parenting
whose parents have separated are in shared resi- after divorce. Her work on fathers and daughters, with
dential custody (4; 5). In an international study of an emphasis on divorced fathers, has been featured on
14 countries, rates of shared parenting varied from PBS, NPR, and in numerous magazines and newspapers
seven percent to 15% (6). In Norway, 25% of chil- internationally. In addition to numerous journal articles,
dren have parents who live apart, eight percent of she has written four books on father-daughter relation-
whom live with their fathers and 10% live in shared ships and a college textbook on adolescent psychology.
residence (7). And in Sweden, where the courts A member of the Association of Family and Conciliation
have the legal right to order alternating residence Courts and the Southeastern Psychological Association,
even when one parent is opposed, 20% of the chil- she has made numerous presentations on shared parent-
dren with separated parents live in two homes (8). ing and divorced fathers, and has served as an expert
Interestingly, in France, about 12% of the children witness on shared parenting research. More information
whose parents live apart share their time between about her work is available on her website www.wfu.
the two homes, while an additional 12% live with edu/~nielsen or through email [email protected].

61
62 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW

focus instead on only a few studies—often based on shared parenting will only succeed and will only
small, nonrandom samples of the highest conflict, benefit the children when the parents are coop-
physically abusive, and never married parents. For erative, have little or no conflict, are relatively well
example, a recent article in a British law school jour- educated and financially above average, and mutu-
nal is entitled “Shared residence: a review of recent ally agree to share the parenting without any inter-
research evidence,” yet the article only presents four vention by lawyers, judges, or mediators. In short,
research studies, two of which are based on samples it only works for a handful of parents. Fifth, most
with large numbers of never married couples (11). shared care families are going to fail because the
arrangement is so stressful and so problematic for
the parents and for the children. So why put every-
Overnight time benefits children more than one through this unpleasant “experiment” since it
daytime contact. so rarely succeeds? And sixth, most shared parent-
ing children feel stressed, dissatisfied, insecure,
destabilized, and troubled by living in two homes.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to sum- Bluntly put, they hate shared parenting and resent
marize all of the studies presently available on their parents for imposing it on them.
shared parenting families. A number of terms are Each of these six issues will be addressed
used to refer to families where the children live at through the research presented in this review. But
least 35% of the time with each parent after they first, we present the three premises on which shared
separate: dual residence, shared physical custody, parenting is predicated. First, children benefit from
shared care, joint physical custody, and shared par- maximizing nonresidential fathering time. Second,
enting. I will use the term “shared parenting” or overnight time is more important than daytime
“dual residence” to refer to these families. Other contact only. Third, most children dislike and disap-
families will be referred to as “sole residence” or prove of living with their mother and seeing their
“maternal” residence, since 95% of the children living father no more than a couple of weekends a month.
with only one parent are living with their mothers.

NONRESIDENTIAL FATHERING TIME:

MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT SHARED DOES IT MATTER?
PARENTING
The fundamental questions on which shared
Despite its growing popularity, shared parent- parenting rests are: Do most children benefit from
ing still raises a number of concerns and consider- spending time with their nonresidential fathers?
able debate. In academic publications, legislative Does the amount of time or how that time is allo-
debates over custody law reform, and family court cated make any difference? In short, does fathering
custody proceedings, six issues are generally raised time matter? If not, then shared parenting is based
as arguments against shared parenting. The first is on an irrational or unwarranted assumption.
that children will not benefit any more from liv- Ironically, those who contend that nonresiden-
ing in a shared parenting family than from living tial fathering time has little or no impact on children
with one parent and spending two weekends a often cite the meta-analysis by Amato and Gilbreth —
month with their other parent. In short, additional a study which did not come to that conclusion (12).
fathering time is not beneficial. Second, fathers can This analysis of 63 studies examined the relation-
maintain quality relationships with their children ship between the “frequency” of father contact
without having to live together more than a couple and children’s academic achievement and inter-
of weekends a month. That is, high quality par- nalizing and externalizing problems. The authors
enting and close, meaningful relationships are not emphasized two important shortcomings: First, it
related to the amount of time fathers and children was not possible to determine how much time the
spend together — or to how that time is allocated. fathers spent with their children, since “frequency”
Third, family income, cooperative co-parenting, and of contact is not the same as time. Second, the data
high quality parenting from their residential parent on never married fathers was combined with data
are more beneficial than living with each parent 35 on divorced fathers. So unmarried fathers who had
to 50% of the time. Put differently, shared parent- never, or only briefly, lived with their children were
ing is not related to children’s well-being. Fourth, included with divorced fathers who had lived with
 SHARED RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY: REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (PART I OF II) 63

their children for years. The researchers, therefore, addressed this question. Those who spent overnight
were not surprised that there was only a weak cor- time in their father’s home felt closer to him and felt
relation between contact and outcomes for children. he knew more about what was going on in their lives
Even so, there was a correlation. More important than those who spent the same amount of time with
still, the correlation was much stronger in the recent their fathers, but never overnight time. Those who
studies (1989-1999) than in the older ones (1970- lived more than 30 nights a year with their father
1988). “As expected, children were better off when were more likely than those who spent fewer over-
they spent time with fathers who had positive nights to feel comfortable in his home, to feel they
relationships with their children and were actively belonged there, and to feel their fathers knew them
engaged in parenting” (p. 570). Given this, they well. It is worth noting that these benefits accrued
recommended changing custody policies so that regardless of the level of parent conflict (29).
fathers would not be restricted to weekend time. In
an even more recent review of the research, Amato
again concludes, “[c]onsequently, policies and FATHERING TIME: CHILDREN’S PERSPECTIVE
interventions designed to improve ties between
fathers and children should be maintained and The third premise underlying shared parenting is
encouraged” (p. 192) (13). that most children want to spend more time living
with their fathers. Most do not like the “every other
weekend” parenting plan. Indeed, this is one of the
most consistent, most robust findings in the research
Most children do not like “every other on children of divorce. Most children say they
weekend” parenting. wanted more time with their fathers and that the
most long lasting, most negative impact of their par-
ents’ divorce was the weakened or lost relationship
More recent studies continue to demonstrate with their fathers (30-32) (33). The majority who had
that the amount of time that nonresidential fathers lived with their mothers said that shared parent-
spend with their children is closely tied to the ongo- ing would have been in their best interests (16; 19;
ing quality and endurance of their relationship. 34-36). Not surprisingly, when fathers try to rebuild
This finding is robust across a wide range of studies their relationships during the children’s early adult
with large samples, for example: 650 young Ameri- years, the relationship is often too strained or too
can adults from a national sample (14), 162 British damaged to be reconstructed (37) (16). As one of
children (15), 1200 American college students in the most highly respected researchers on children
Missouri (16), 99 college students in Virginia (17), 105 of divorce, Joan Kelly, states, “[f]or four decades
Canadian college students (18), 80 predominantly children have reported the loss of the father as the
Hispanic American college students in Florida (19), most negative aspect of divorce. Even when they con-
and 245 adolescents in Germany (20). tinued to see each other, most relationships declined
Having a close and enduring relationship with in closeness over time. This has been primarily a result
their fathers should—in and of itself—be enough of the traditional visiting patterns of every other week-
justification for maximizing fathering time. But end which has been slow to change even in the face
nonresidential fathering time is correlated with of mounting research evidence and a reluctance to
other positive outcomes for children as well. order overnights for your children” (p. 66) (38).
Among the benefits are higher self esteem (21) Shared parenting is not based on the assump-
(22), less delinquency and drug use (23) (24), fewer tion that all children will benefit from this living
behavioral problems (25), and less smoking and arrangement or that other factors do not also con-
dropping out of high school (26; 27). In fact, ado- tribute to children’s well-being after their par-
lescents from intact families who do not feel close ents separate. It has long been acknowledged that
to their fathers are more delinquent than adoles- physically abusive, violent, drug addicted, alco-
cents with divorced parents who feel close to their holic, or mentally disturbed parents seldom have
fathers (28). a positive impact on their children (39). These par-
The second premise on which shared parenting is ents, therefore, would be poor candidates for shared
based is that overnight time benefits children more parenting. What must be kept in mind, however,
than daytime contact only with their fathers. Only is that these parents comprise no more than eight
one study with 60 Australian adolescents has directly percent to 15% of divorced couples (40). Moreover,
64 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW

the parenting plan is one among many factors that child-rearing, to verbal abuse, to injurious and life
influence children’s well-being. Among them are threatening physical violence. Second, conflict is
family income, parents’ educational levels, the qual- highest during the time when couples are separat-
ity of each parent’s relationship with the children, ing—the time when custody decisions are being dis-
the level of conflict between the parents, and the cussed or disputed. Moreover, parents often disagree
quality of the parenting. It is widely accepted in our about how much conflict exists in their relationship.
society and is documented in the parenting research But regardless of how it is defined, “high” conflict
that both parents need ample time with their chil- almost always declines after the divorce is finalized,
dren in order to create and maintain quality rela- meaning that conflict during divorce proceedings
tionships and quality parenting. Shared parenting is is not a reliable predictor of future conflict. Third,
based on the assumption that this principle applies the term is used in overly broad, inconsistent, and
to children whose parents are no longer living inappropriate ways by lawyers, judges, and men-
together, as well as to those in intact families. tal health professionals in the family justice system.
That is, “conflict” becomes the weapon that parents
use in their attempt to deprive one another of legal
Parent conflict during divorce is not a custody or parenting time. There is ample motiva-
reliable predictor of future conflict. tion, therefore, for one or both parents to portray
their conflict as far higher and far more intractable
than it actually is. Fifth, it is estimated that no more
Each of the studies addresses at least one of four than eight percent to 12% of divorced couples are
questions. First, do most parents in shared parent- in “high” conflict—the kind of conflict that poses a
ing families differ in significant ways from other danger to children and often stems from personal-
divorced parents? Specifically, are they far better ity disorders, drug or alcohol additions, or men-
off financially or far more cooperative and conflict- tal illness (40). Sixth, even though conflict is never
free than other divorced parents? Put differently, is beneficial for children, parental disagreements and
shared parenting feasible only for a relatively small, verbal conflicts are not necessarily harmful. This is
select group of parents? Second, are there any advan- especially true when the conflict stems from a sincere
tages for children who grow up in shared parenting desire by both divorced parents to maintain an active
families compared to those who live almost exclu- role in their children’s lives. Seventh, even when the
sively with their mother? Third, how do adolescents conflict is ongoing and seemingly intractable, paral-
and young adults who have been raised in shared lel parenting plans still make it possible for these
parenting and maternal residence families feel about parents to share the parenting time. Parallel parent-
the living arrangement that their parents chose for ing plans provide the kind of specifics and structure
them? Which of these two parenting plans did they that limit the parents’ need for contact or commu-
feel was in their best interest? And fourth, how does nication, thus reducing conflict. Finally, it must be
the quality of the father-child relationship compare in remembered that conflict is inevitable for all parents
shared parenting versus maternal residence families? over childrearing issues. Even the most happily
married couples argue and disagree over parenting.
Divorced parents, therefore, should not be expected
PARENT CONFLICT AND COOPERATION to be “conflict-free” in order to share the parenting.
For all of these reasons, many experts on chil-
Before discussing the issue of conflict in shared dren of divorce concur that conflict should never be
parenting families, a number of important research used as the reason for limiting the amount of time
findings must be kept in mind (41; 42). First, the that children spend with either parent—unless that
term “high conflict” has not been and probably conflict involves a documented history of physical
never will be operationalized by social scientists or abuse or violence (38; 49; 51; 71; 99).
by professionals involved in custody decisions. The
term covers too wide a range of behaviors to be of
much practical significance in regard to legal cus- SHARED PARENTING FAMILIES:
tody or parenting time. The term is used in family CONFLICT AND COOPERATION
court and by researchers to describe anything from
intense anger and distrust, to ongoing problems with In regard to conflict then, do most shared parent-
communication, to frequent disagreements about ing couples have a cooperative, friendly, relatively
 SHARED RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY: REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (PART I OF II) 65

conflict-free relationship compared to other from other divorced parents primarily in two ways.
divorced couples? Are these parents so friendly First, both parents were committed to having the
and conflict-free that they are all enthusiastic from father remain actively involved in the children’s
the outset about sharing the residential custody? In lives. Second, the father’s flexible work schedule
short, is shared parenting only possible for a small, made it possible for the children to live with him at
select group? Moreover, if most of these couples least one third of the time. But in regard to conflict
have a conflict free, communicative, friendly co- and cooperation, the researchers’ concluded: “[p]
parenting relationship, then is it not likely that arents can share the residential time even though they
whatever benefits might accrue to their children are not talking to each other or trying to coordinate the
is due to the parents’ excellent relationship—and children rearing environments of their two households”
not to the shared residential parenting? As Table 1 (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1991, p. 292).
illustrates, many parents who are succeeding at Five smaller studies with a total of 117 shared
shared parenting do not have especially friendly, parenting families also conducted in the 1980s
cooperative, or conflict-free relationships. echoed the results of the Stanford study. Many cou-
Beginning with the oldest longitudinal study, the ples did not mutually agree at the outset to share
landmark Stanford Custody Study, is a good start- the parenting, varying from 20% (52), to 40% (53)
ing point. The study collected data over a four-year to 50% (54). The overall quality of those couples’
period in the late 1980s from 1100 divorced families relationships was somewhat better than other par-
with 1386 children. There were 92 shared parenting ents, but most were more strained than they were
families. Initially, nearly 80% of the mothers were friendly. For example, three years after separating,
not in favor of sharing the residential parenting. In 10% of the 39 parents who had maintained shared
other words, shared parenting was “forced.” Most parenting said their relationship was “impossible,”
entered into the agreement reluctantly. Moreover, compared to 30% of the 276 parents who were not
the majority did not work closely together in co- sharing (55). In these five studies, however, the
parenting, and did not communicate better than shared parenting couples had no history of physical
the other divorced couples. Most had a disengaged, violence, unlike the families whose children were
business-like, parallel parenting relationship where in sole residence. Learning to make shared parent-
they communicated “as needed.” They differed ing work well took time for most couples. Yet most

Table 1 Characteristics of Shared Parenting Couples

Conflict &
Cooperation Number of Families Shared Compared to Sole Initially Opposed Sharing
Brotsky 40 similar 50% in court ordered mediation
Cashmore
CSA 440 dads say better/ moms say similar
LSAC 84 similar
CFC 123 somewhat better 40%
Irving 75 somewhat better 30%
Juby 112 similar
Kaspiew 645 somewhat better
Kitterod 209 similar
Kline 35 worse in shared all in court ordered mediation
Lodge 105 similar
Luepnitz 11 similar 50%
Maccoby 92 similar 82%
Melli 595 somewhat better
Pearson 111 somewhat better 40%
Spruijt 135 slightly better
66 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW

succeeded even though they still had conflicts and Court-Ordered or Mediated Shared Custody
many had initially opposed the sharing.
Another question regarding conflict is: If cou-
ples are in conflict over whether to share the par-
enting, can this parenting plan succeed? That is, if
Parallel parenting plans limit the plan is court-ordered or negotiated through a
communication and conflict. mediator or lawyers, can it work and can the chil-
dren still benefit? In the seven studies that have
collected this data, the answer is “yes,” as Table  1
A much more recent, larger study in Wisconsin illustrates. Despite the fact that many of their
reached similar conclusions (56). Data were col- parents were not initially in favor of a shared par-
lected three years after divorce from a large ran- enting plan, these children had more positive out-
dom sample of 590 shared residence and 590 sole comes on measures of wellbeing than the children
residence families. Roughly 15% of the couples in in maternal residence families. Shared parenting
both groups described their relationship as “hos- was not the first choice for a number of these par-
tile.” Most shared parenting couples had a cordial ents, with the rates of those not initially agreeing
but business-like parallel parenting relationship ranging from 20% (52), to 40% (53; 59; 60) to 50%
that was not conflict-free. In fact, the shared par- (54; 61), to 82% (62). Although it stands to reason
enting couples were more likely to have conflicts that those parents who mutually agree to share
over childrearing issues (50%) than families from the outset probably have an easier time mak-
where  the  children lived with their mother (30%). ing their plan work, these seven studies demon-
Understandably, there were more conflicts over strate that children can benefit, and sharing can
childrearing issues in the sharing families, since succeed, even when one of the parents is not ini-
these fathers were more engaged in parenting tially in favor of the plan.
than the fathers whose children lived with their In sum, shared parenting couples do not gener-
mothers. ally have conflict-free, especially friendly, or highly
cooperative “co-parenting” relationship. Likewise,
a considerable number did not mutually agree to
International Studies Confirm
share the parenting, yet they still succeeded. On the
American Studies
other hand, those couples whose shared parenting
International studies confirm these American succeeds rarely have conflicts that reach the level of
studies. In a Dutch study, conflict for the 135 physical abuse, violence, or terrifying intimidation.
couples with shared parenting and for 350 with
sole residence were similar four years after their
divorce. On the other hand, the couples who had INCOME AND OTHER DISTINGUISHING
the least conflict at the time of the divorce were FACTORS
more likely to have shared parenting (5). Likewise,
in a large Australian study, 20% of the 645 shared If having a friendly, cooperative, conflict-free
parenting couples had ongoing conflicts and distant relationship and being mutually enthusiastic about
relationships even three years after their divorce shared parenting from the outset are not absolutely
(57). In a smaller Australian study with 105 shared necessary for couples to succeed at shared parent-
parenting and 398 sole residence couples, only one ing, are there other factors that set them apart? In
third of the couples in either group said they had terms of income, it goes without saying that shared
a cooperative relationship. Likewise, only 25% of parenting couples must have enough money to
the sharing and 18% of non-sharing couples said provide two households suitable for children. Both
they were “friendly,” with eight percent and 15%, parents must also have flexible enough work sched-
respectively, reporting “lots of conflict” (58). In a ules that their children can live with them more
smaller study with 20 British and 15 French fathers, than a couple of weekends a month. Since well-
the majority did not have cooperative, friendly rela- educated people generally earn higher incomes,
tionships with their children’s mother. Again, these and since higher income jobs generally have more
couples were parallel parenting with little or no flexible, family-friendly work hours, parents with
communication, even though half of these 60 chil- higher incomes and more education are somewhat
dren were under the age of five (10). more likely to have shared parenting plans. Still,
 SHARED RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY: REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (PART I OF II) 67

parents with higher incomes, more flexible work several of these factors. The shared parenting
hours, and more education are more likely to have mothers were more likely to have a boyfriend
shared parenting families (55; 58; 63; 64). (often someone with whom she had been involved
This does not mean, however, that most shared before the divorce) and more likely to be clinically
parenting couples are college-educated or finan- depressed. It may be that these mothers were more
cially well off. Most are not. Generally speaking, willing to share the parenting because they wanted
shared parenting couples have incomes and educa- the child-free time to finish school or to be with
tions similar to other divorced parents (10; 54; 56; their boyfriends. For depressed mothers, it may
59; 62). On the other hand, for 758 Canadian fami- be that living with the children full time was too
lies in a national survey, the mothers without high daunting and overwhelming (64).
school degrees were more likely than better-edu- The child’s gender also appears to play a role in
cated mothers to share the parenting. It may be that parents’ decisions to share the parenting. Sons are
these mothers wanted more free time to finish their slightly more likely than daughters to be living
educations (64). Or it may be that shared parenting in a shared parenting family (5; 56; 63; 64; 66-68).
is becoming more popular with less educated par- This may be happening because mothers feel less
ents. For example, in Wisconsin, shared parenting capable of raising sons on their own. Or it may be
has increased in lower-income families over recent that fathers and sons feel more comfortable liv-
years (65). In any case, shared parenting is not only ing together than fathers and daughters. Then too,
for wealthy, well-educated parents. A large, recent fathers and sons generally have a closer relation-
study with 1180 families in Wisconsin illustrates ship than mothers and sons or fathers and daugh-
this (Melli & Brown, 2008). In the shared parenting ters before the parents separate (69).
families, the fathers’ average incomes were $40,000
(30% college graduates) as compared to $32,000
(25% college graduates) for the other divorced
REFERENCES
fathers. The mothers’ incomes and educational lev-
els were virtually the same, $23,000 versus $22,000,
1. Kelly, J. (2007) Children’s living arrangements follow-
with only 25% in both groups having a college
ing divorce. Family Process 46, 35-52.
degree.
Interestingly though, college-educated fathers
2. George, T. (2008) Residential time summary reports.
may be less willing than other fathers to let their
Washington State Center for Court Research, Olympia,
children have a say in whether they want a shared
WA.
parenting plan. In a Norwegian study with 527
divorced parents, half of whom were sharing the
3. Venohr, J., and Kaunelis, R. (2008) Child support
parenting, the least-educated fathers were twice as
guidelines. Family Court Review 43, 415-428.
likely as the college-educated fathers to give their
children a say in how much time they wanted to
4. Smyth, B. (2009) A 5 year retrospective of shared care
live with each parent. The mothers’ educational
research in Australia. Journal of Family Studies 15, 36-59.
levels were irrelevant. It may be that the college-
educated fathers were more involved in their chil-
5. Spruijt , E., and Duindam, V. (2010) Joint physi-
dren’s lives before the separation and were more
cal custody in the Netherlands and the well being of
committed to continuing to live with them. Or it
children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 51, 65-82.
may be that the college-educated fathers were more
knowledgeable about the importance of fathers 6. Skinner, C., Bradshaw, J., and Davidson, J. (2007)
in children’s daily lives. Regardless of the fathers’ Child support policy: An international perspective. The
educational levels, adolescents were allowed more Stationery Office, London, England.
input than younger children. So both the father’s
education and the children’s age played a part in 7. Skjorten, K., and Barlindhaug, R. (2007) The involve-
determining the parenting plan (7). ment of children in decisions about shared residence.
Moreover, factors other than income and edu- International Journal of Law, Policy and Family 21, 373-385.
cation are associated with a couple’s decision to
share the parenting. A large, Canadian study with 8. Singer, A. (2008) Active parenting or Solomon’s jus-
758 divorced families where 16% of the children tice? Alternating residence in Sweden for children with
were living in shared residence families illustrates separated parents. Utrech Law Review 4, 35-47.
68 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW

9. Toulemon, L. (2008) Two home family situations of 23. Carlson, M. (2006) Family structure, father involve-
children and adults. Institute of National Demographics, ment and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and
Paris. Family, 68, 137-154.

10. Masardo, A. (2009) Managing shared residence in 24. Coley, R., and Medeiros, B. (2007) Nonresident father
Britain and France: Questioning a default primary carer involvement and delinquency. Child Development 78,
model. In Social Policy Review (Rummery, K., Greenland, F., 132-147.
and Holden, C., Eds.) pp 197-214, Polity Press, Bristol.
25. King, V., and Soboleski, D. (2006) Nonresident
11. Trinder, L. (2010) Shared residence: review of recent fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being. Journal of
research evidence. Family Law 40, 1192-1195. Marriage and Family, 68, 537-557.

12. Amato, P., and Gilbreth, J. (1999) Nonresident fathers

26. Menning, C. (2006) Nonresident fathering and school
and children’s well being: a meta-analysis. Journal of Mar-
failure. Journal of Family Issues 27, 1356-1382.
riage and Family 61, 557-573.
27. Menning, C. (2006) Nonresident fathers’ involvement
13. Amato, P., and Dorius, C. (2012) Fathers, children
and adolescents’ smoking. Journal of Health and Social
and divorce. In The Role of the Father in Child Development
Behavior 47, 32-46.
(Lamb, M., Ed.) pp 177-201, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
28. Booth, P., Scott, M., and King, V. (2010) Father resi-
14. Aquilino, W. (2010) Noncustodial father child rela-
dence and adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Family
tionship from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal
Issues 3, 585-605.
of Marriage and Family 68, 929-945.

15. Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O’Connor, T., and Bridges, L. 29. Cashmore, J., Parkinson, P., and Taylor, A. (2008)
(2004) Children’s perceptions on their relationships with Overnight stays and children’s relationships with parents
nonresident fathers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi- after divorce. Journal of Family Issues 29, 707-733.
atry 45, 553-566.
30. Emery, R. The truth about children and divorce (2004)
16. Harvey, J., and Fine, M. Children of divorce (2010) Viking, New York.
Routledge, New York.
31. Finley, G., and Schwartz, S. (2007) Father involve-
17. Laumann, L., and Emery, R. (2000) Distress among ment and young adult outcomes. Family Court Review 45,
young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family 573-587.
Psychology 14, 671-687.
32. Marquardt, E. Between two worlds: Inner lives of
18. Peters, B., and Ehrenberg, M. (2008) The influence of children of divorce (2005) Crown, New York.
parental separation on father-child relationships. Journal
of Divorce & Remarriage 49, 78-108. 33. Smith, A. (2003) Re-thinking children’s involvement
in decision making. Family Law Journal 259, 259-266.
19. Schwartz, S., and Finley, G. (2005) Divorce variables
as predictors of young adults fathering reports. Journal of 34. Fabricius, W. V., (2003) Listening to children of
Divorce and Remarriage 44, 144-164. divorce. Family Relations 52, 385-396.

20. Struss, S., Pfeiffer, C., Preus, U., and Felder, N. (2001) 35. Parkinson, P., Cashmore, J., and Single, J. (2005) Ado-
Adolescents perceptions of visitation arrangements. Jour- lescents’ views on the fairness of parent arrangements
nal of Divorce & Remarriage 35, 75-89. after separation. Family Court Review 43, 430-445.

21. Berg, E. (2003) Effects of closeness to custodial par- 36. Shulman, S., et al. (2001) How young adults perceive
ents and nonresident parents on adolescent self esteem. parental divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 34,
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 40, 69-86. 3-17.

22. Dunlop, R., Burns, S., and Berminghan, S. (2001) Par- 37. Braithwaite, D., and Baxter, L. (2006) You’re my par-
ent child relations and adolescent self image following ent but you’re not. Journal of Applied Communication
divorce. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30, 117-134. Research 34, 30-48.
 SHARED RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY: REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (PART I OF II) 69

38. Kelly, J. (2012) Risk and protective factors for children 52. Irving, H., and Benjamin, M. (1991) Shared and sole
of divorce. In Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research custody parents. In Joint custody and shared parenting (Fol-
for the family court (Kuehnle, K., and Drozd, L., Eds.) pp berg, J., Ed.) pp 114-132, Guilford Press, New York.
145-173, Oxford University Press, New York.
53. Brotsky, M., Steinman, S., and Zemmelman, S. (1991)
39. Lamb, M. Role of the father in child development (2010) Joint custody through mediation. In Joint custody and
Wiley, New York. shared parenting (Folberg, J., Ed.) pp 167-186, Guilford,
New York.
40. Johnston, J., Roseby, V., and Kuehnle, K. In the name
of the child: Understanding and helping children of con- 54. Luepnitz, D. (1991) Maternal, paternal and joint cus-
flicted and violent divorce (2009) Springer, New York. tody. In Joint custody and shared parenting (Folberg, J., Ed.)
pp 105-113, Guilford Press, New York.
41. Birnbaum, R., and Bala, N. (2010) Toward the differ-
entiation of high conflict families: An analysis of social 55. Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. (1991) Child custody and
science research and Canadian case law. Family Court support after divorce. In Joint custody and shared parenting
Review 48, 403-416. (Folberg, J., Ed.) pp 185-209, Guilford Press, New York.

42. Birnbaum, R., and Fidler, B. (2010) The emergence of 56. Melli, M., and Brown, P. (2008) Exploring a new fam-
parallel parenting orders. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, ily form — the shared time family. International Journal of
111-121. Law, Policy and Family 22, 231-269.

43. Emery, R., Otto, R., and O’Donohue, W. (2005) Assess- 57. Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand,
ment of child custody evaluations. Psychological Science in K., and Qu, L. (2009) Evaluation of 2006 family law
the Public Interest 6, 1-29. reforms in Australia. Australian Institute of Family Stud-
ies, Sydney, Australia.
44. Afifi, T., and Hamrick, K. (2006) Risk and resiliency in
postdivorce families. In Handbook of Divorce (Fine, M., and 58. Lodge, J. and Alexander, M. (2010) Views of adoles-
Harvey, J., Eds.) pp 435-457, Routledge, New York. cents in separated families. pp 1-77, Australian Institute
of Family Studies, Sydney, Australia.
45. Ahrons, C. (2007) Family ties after divorce. Family
Process 46, 53-65. 59. Cashmore, J. and Parkinson, P. (2010) Shared care par-
enting arrangements since the 2006 family law reforms.
46. Amato, P., and Dorius, C. (2010) Fathers, children and University of New South Wales Social Research Centre,
divorce. In Role of the Father in Child Development (Lamb, Sydney, Australia.
M., Ed.) Wiley & Sons, New York.
60. Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. (1991) Child custody
47. Buchanan, C., and Maccoby, E. Adolescents after and child support after divorce. In Joint custody and shared
divorce. (1996) Harvard University, Cambridge, Massa- parenting (Folberg, J., Ed.) pp 185-209, Guilford Press,
chusetts. New York.

48. Emery, R., Sbarra, D., and Grover, T. (2005) Divorce 61. Kline, M., Tschann, J., Johnston, J., and Wallerstein,
Mediation. Family Court Review 43, 22-37. J. (1989) Children’s adjustment in joint and sole physical
custody families. Developmental Psychology 25, 430-438.
49. Fabricius, W., Braver, S., Diaz, P., and Velez, C. (2010)
Custody and parenting time. In The role of the father in 62. Maccoby, E., and Mnookin, R. Dividing the child (1992)
child development (Lamb, M., Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
New York.
63. Kitterod, R. and Lyngstad, J. (2011) Untraditional car-
50. Gunnoe, M., and Braver, S. (2001) Effects of joint ing arrangements among parents living apart in Norway.
legal custody on mothers, fathers, and children. Law and pp 1-32, Statistics Norway, Research Department, Oslo,
Human Behavior 25, 25-43. Norway.

51. Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J., and Braver, S. (2008) 64. Juby, J., Burdais, C., and Gratton, N. (2005) Sharing
Effects of parenting in high and low conflict divorces. roles, sharing custody. Journal of Marriage and Family 67,
Family Court Review 46, 282-296. 157-172.
70 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY LAW

65. Cook, S. and Brown, P. (2006) Recent trends in chil- 78. Williams, G. (2007) Judicial response to joint custody
dren’s placement in divorce. University of Wisconsin, statutes. Law and Society Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Madison.
79. Braver, S., Ellman, I., Votruba, A., and Fabricius, W.
66. Grall, T. (2006) Custodial mothers and fathers. In (2011) Lay ludgments about child custody after divorce.
Current populaton reports pp 60-230, Census Bureau, Psychology, Public Policy and Law 17, 212-238.
Washington, DC.
80. Mnookin, R., and Kornhauser, L. (1979) Bargaining in
67. Stamps, K., Booth, A., and King, V. (2009) Adolescents the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Jour-
with nonresident fathers: Are daughters more disadvan- nal 88, 950-997.
taged than sons? Journal of Marriage and the Family 71(3),
650-662. 81. Fabricius, W., and Luecken, L. (2007) Postdivorce liv-
ing arrangements, parent conflict and physical health for
68. McIntosh, J., Smyth, B., Kelaher, M., and Wells, Y. L. C. children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology 21, 195-205.
(2010) Post separation parenting arrangements: outcomes
for infants and children. Australian Government, Sydney, 82. Campana, K., Henderson, S., and Stolberg, A. (2008)
Australia. Parenting styles and children’s adjustment to divorce.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 48, 1-20.
69. Nielsen, L. Fathers and Daughters: Contemporary
83. Lee, M. (2002) Children’s adjustment in maternal and
Research and Issues (2012) Routledge, New York.
dual residence arrangements. Journal of Family Issues 23,
671-687.
70. Frieman, B. (2007) Helping professionals understand
challenges of noncustodial parents. Journal of Divorce and 84. Prazen, A., Wolfinger, N., Cahill, C., and Jones, L.
Remarriage 39, 167-173. (2011) Joint physical custody and neighborhood friend-
ships in middle childhood. Sociological Inquiry 81, 247-259.
71. Kruk, E. (2010) Parental and social institutional
responsibilities to children’s needs after divorce. Journal 85. Jablonska, B., and Lindberg, L. (2007) Risk behaviors
of Men’s Studies 18, 159-178. and mental distress among adolescents in different family
structures. Social Psychiatry and Epidemiology 42, 656-663.
72. Stone, G., and Dudley, J. Fathering at risk: Helping non-
residential fathers (2006) Men’s Studies Press, Harriman, 86. Breivik, K., and Olweus, D. (2006) Adolescent’s
Tennessee. adjustment in four family structures. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage 44, 99-124.
73. Peeples, R., Reynolds, S., and Harris, C. (2008) Factors
that inhibit successful mediation in high conflict custody 87. Haugen, G. (2010) Children’s perspectives on shared
cases. Wake Forest Law Review 43, 505-525. residence. Children and Society 24, 112-122.

88. Neoh, J., and Mellor, D. (2010) Shared parenting:

74. Braver, S., Cookston, J., and Cohen, B. (2002) Expe-
Adding children’s voices. Journal of Child Custody 7,
riences of family law attorneys with current divorce
155-175.
practice. Family Relations 51, 325-334.
89. Bjarnason, T. A. A. (2012) Joint physical custody and
75. Dotterweich, D. (2000) Attitudes regarding gender communication with parents: A cross national study of
bias in child custody cases. Family and Conciliation Courts children in 36 western countries. Journal of Comparative
Review 38, 208. Family Studies 42, 871-890.

76. Stamps, L. (2002) Maternal preference in child 90. Bjarnason, T. A. A. (2010) Life satisfaction among chil-
custody decisions. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 37, dren in different family structures: A comparative study
1-12. of 36 Western countries. Children and Society 26, 51-62.

77. Wallace, S., and Koerner, S. (2003) Influence of family 91. Fabricius, W., Diaz, P., and Braver, S. (2011) Parenting
factors on judicial decisions in contested custody cases. time, parent conflict and children’s physical health after
Family Relations 52, 180-188. divorce. In Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for
 SHARED RESIDENTIAL CUSTODY: REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH (PART I OF II) 71

the family court (Kuehnle, R., and Drozd, R., Eds.) pp 100- 99. Lamb, M. (2012) Critical analysis of research on par-
130, Oxford University Press, Cambridge, England. enting plans and children’s well-being. In Parenting plan
evaluations: Applied research for the family court (Kuehnle,
92. Janning, M., Laney, J., and Collins, C. (2010) Spatial K., and Drozd, L., Eds.) pp 214-246, Oxford University
and temporal arrangements: Young adults’ postdivorce Press, New York.
experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 51, 413-427.
100. Parkinson, P., and Cashmore, J. (2011) Parenting
93. Frank, H. (2007) Young adults’ relationships with par- arrangements for young children: Messages for research.
ents: Marital status, conflict and post divorce predictors. Australian Journal of Family Law 25, 236-257.
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 46, 105-124.
101. Weiss, L. (2008) Wheezing in children. American
94. Fullterton, T. (2009) Shared parenting hurting chil- FAmily Psysician 15, 1109-1114.
dren. Lateline, ABC News.
102. Carmo, B. (2009) Minor psychiatric disorders in
mothers and asthma in children. Social Psychiatry and Epi-
95. Fehlberg, B., Smyth, B., Maclean, M., and Roberts,
demilogy 4, 416-420.
C. (2011) Caring for children after parental separation:
Would legislation for shared parening time help children?
103. Reyes, M. (2011) Relationship between maternal
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 1-16.
demoralization, wheeze and immunoglobulin in innter
city children. Journal of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
96. Gilmore, S. (2010) Shared parenting: the law and the 107, 42-49.
evidence. Seen and Heard 20, 21-35.
104. Smart, C. The changing experience of childhood: Fami-
97. Harris, S. (2011) Resisting the march towards 50/50 lies and divorce (2001) Polity Press, Cambridge, England.
shared residence. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
32, 257-274. 105. Cloutier, R., and Jacques, C. (1997) Evolution of cus-
tody arrangements. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 28,
98. Kerns, S., and Prinz, R. (2012) Coparenting children 17-33.
with attention deficit disorders and disruptive behavior
disorders. In Parenting plan evaluations: applied research for 106. Berger , L., Brown, P., Joung, E., Melli, M., and
the family court (Kuehnle, K., and Drozd, L., Eds.) pp 330- Wimer, L. (2008) Stability of child physical placements
369, Oxford University Press, New York. after divorce. Marriage and Family 70, 273-283.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.